1921-03-23

[Stage Direction]
Mr. H. H. STEVENS (Centre Vancouver) moved for leave to introduce Bill No. 41, to amend the Railway Act.
He said: Very briefly, the object of this Bill is to amend certain sections of the Railway Act in which reference is made to the matter of discrimination in rates. In the Act as it now stands the word

"discrimination" is invariably preceded by words such as "unreasonable", "undue", "unfair", and such like. This Bill proposes to remove these words, thus making the question of discrimination an absolute one, rather than one that is subject to these modifications.
Motion agreed to, and Bill read the first time.

[Stage Direction]
On the Order "Questions" being called:
Right Hon. ARTHUR MEIGHEN (Prime Minister) :: Mr. Speaker, this being Private Members' day, it seems improbable that the Orders of the Day will be reached, and consequently I shall not be able to take the usual opportunity of fulfilling two or three promises I made to the House yesterday. I would, therefore, crave the privilege of making a statement.


Mr. SPEAKER:: Is it the pleasure of the House that the right hon. gentleman should have unanimous consent to make his statement?


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Carried.


Arthur Meighen: I undertook to reply to-day to a question of the hon. member for Three Rivers and St. Maurice (Mr. Bureau) as to whether communications had come from the International Joint Commission with reference to control of the waters of the Lake of the Woods, either since or prior to November last, or from any Branch, American or Canadian. The answer is, No. The last communication was some time in March 1916. I know that that is outside the period that the hon. member had in mind.



CANADIAN NATIONAL RAILWAYS- AMQUI STATION

Arthur Meighen: The hon. member for Matane (Mr. Pelletier) asked as to communications which I should have received, but which he complained were unanswered. The first one referred to, dated March 10, was received and acknowledged. The second one, dated March 15, was also received and acknowledged. I will hand the answer to the hon. member. I only mention it now because I promised to do so.



* CIVIL SERVICE BONUS

Arthur Meighen: I also promised to
make a statement to-day with regard to the bonus granted to the Civil Service. The House, of course, knows that this bonus has been given to meet the abnormal increase in living costs. This addition to civil service salaries amounted, for the fiscal year just closing, to some $12,500,000, running the total appropriation for remuneration of the Civil Service for the year to something over $66,000,000. The Government has decided, in view of the increases following re-classification, and of the diminishing cost of living, and having regard also to the imperative necessity of retrenchment wherever possible, to reduce this bonus, commencing with the ensuing year, by 25 per cent.



QUESTIONS

[Stage Direction]
(Questions answered orally are indicated by an asterisk.)
Mr. A. D. GEORGE

Mr. GERVAIS:: Is the telephone line between Berthierville and He St-Ignace and lie du Pas the property of the Government?


Hon. Mr. McCURDY:: Yes, and it is operated under agreement by the Bell Telephone Company.


STEEL PLATES FOR SHIPS
Mr. DUFF:: 1.	At what date did the Government make a contract with the Dominion Iron and Steel Company to supply steel plates for ships?

2.	What was the total quantity contained in that contract and which were to be delivered by the said company to the Government?
3.	What was the price per ton agreed upon?
4.	How many tons have been delivered so far and where delivered?
5.	Has the contract since been cancelled?
6.	If so, what damages did the Government have to pay the said Dominion Iron and Steel Company?
7.	If not, has the Dominion Iron and Steel Company made any claim against the Government? If so, how much?


Hon. Mr. REID:: 1,	2 and 3. The original contract with the Dominion Iron and Steel Company, Ltd., was authorized by Order in Council dated March 26, 1918, and was dated April 2,
1918.	That contract provided for the erection of a modern 110 inch steel plate mill by the Dominion Iron and Steel Company, Ltd., the Government undertaking on its part to purchase 50,000 gross tons of plates per annum for a period of five years at a price of $4.15 per 100 lbs. base f.o.b. cars Sydney or f.o.b. steamed Sydney or Louis-burg. A modification of this contract was authorized by Order in Council of July 26,
1919,	and the modified agreement under the terms of that Order in Council is dated December 10, 1919. This agreement provided for a reduction of the price to be paid the Dominion Iron & Steel Company, Ltd., from $4.15 per 100 lbs. to $3.65 per 100 lbs
4.	40,400 gross tons delivered f.o.b. Sydney.
5.	Yes.	*
6.	The Government has paid no damages.
7.	No.	[DOT]


THE PRINTING BUREAU
Mr. HOCKEN:: 1.	How many men have been taken on the
staff of the Printing Bureau since February 1st 1921?	^
2.	Under what authority were they taken on?
3.	What are their names?


Sir HENRY DRAYTON:: 1.	36.
2.	Civil Service Commission.
3.	Alexander Fraser, William Potter, John Hanna, Eugene Edouard Bedard, William Caswell, Miss Alice Mailhot, James Ambrose Kavanagh, George Archibald La-combe (since resigned), Robert Harker, George McCann, George Drewer, Alexander Brown, Thomas Patrick Morrissey, Frank Charles Runge, Alfred Lee, John Arthur O'Neill, Hugh Henry Borthwick, Oscar Lemieux, Charles Frederick Bruer, Joseph Patrick Milloy, Thomas George Patterson, Alexander Benn, Francis Gilbert Robert' Horace Philip Benedict, Joseph Arthur

Bureau, Thomas Carroll Boucher, John S. Ball, Charles Anderson, Simon O'Meara, Miss Edmee Riendeaur Louis A. Choquette, Miss Sarah McKeever, Michael Ernest Fagan, Henri R. Robert, Hubert Emmett McCarthy, Joseph Philias Lajambe.


DOMINION NOTES AND GOLD RESERVE
[Stage Direction]
. Mr. THOMSON (Qu'Appelle):
1.	What is the amount of Dominion Government Notes issued for circulation?
2.	What portion, if any, of this amount has been circulated by the Government, and how?
3.	What amount, if any, has been loaned or advanced against approved securities to individuals or corporations other than banks, to whom and on what terms and conditions?
4.	What is the total amount of Dominion Government Notes supplied to Canadian banks, under what terms -and conditions as to security and rate of interest?
5.	Have Dominion Government notes been accepted in lieu of gold for deposit in the Central Gold Reserve? If so, to what amount?
6.	W'hat is the actual amount of gold now in the Central Gold Reserve?
7.	What other amounts of gold are held by the Dominion Government and for what purpose?
8.	What other amounts of gold were there in the hands of banks, trust companies, etc., on December 31, 1920?
9.	What is the total amount of bank notes authorized to be issued under sub-section 3, Section 61, or amendments thereto of the" Bank Act?
10.	What was the average amount of bank notes in circulation during the first, second, third and fourth quarters of the year 1920?
Sir HENRY DRAYTON:: 1.	February 28, 1921-$290,194,519.92.
2.	$10,000,000 under Order in Council confirmed by Chapter 4-5 George V.
3.	$10,000,000 to Canadian Northern Railway Company and $6,000,000 to Grand Trunk Railway Company both confirmed by Chapter 4-5 George V.
4.	$87,115,075. Of this amount $56,457,000 was advanced against the security of Imperial Treasury Bill Certificates at 3J per cent; the balance being advanced against Dominion of Canada Treasury Bills, Dominion of Canada War Loan Bonds, Provincial and Municipal Securities, Grain Receipts, and other approved securities at five per cent.
All securities are taken at the present market value less a margin determined by the Treasury Board having in view the nature of the securities deposited.
In addition $50,000,000 has been advanced to the Imperial Government against the deposit of securities approved by the Treasury Board.
5.	Yes-Under sub-section 4, Section 61 of the Bank Act. Amount deposited February 28, 1921-$76,900,000.

6.	February 28, 1921-$11,502,533.33.
7.	On February 28, 1921, the total gold held by the Dominion Government was $103,022,079.99 of which $3,872,550.35 was held as a reserve of 10 per cent on Dominion Government Savings Bank deposits and the balance as security for Dominion Note Circulation.
8.	Current gold and subsidiary coin held by Canadian Chartered Banks December 31, 1920 in Canada and elsewhere $82,687,559. No record of gold held by Trust Companies.
9.	January 31, 1921-$218,162,696. Under sub-section 14 of Section 61 of the Bank Act, which provides for the additional issue of currency during the season of moving the crops, an additional amount of $39,270,563 could be issued as of January 31, 1921, making a grand total of $257.433,259.
' 10. 1st quarter, $221,946,442; 2nd quarter, $225,832,673; 3rd quarter, $230,000,994; 4th, $237,421,406.


DISABILITY PENSIONS
Mr. GRIESBACH:: 1.	Is it a fact that disability pensions paid to the C.E.F. in respect of the great war are equal from the rank of lieutenant to the rank of private, including their dependents?
2.	Is it a fact that disability pensions from the rank of captain upwards, including their dependents, are unequal and are based upon the rank of the pensioner or person with respect to whom pension is granted?
3.	What was the total amount paid with respect to C.E.F. disability pensions for the year ending December 31, 1920?
4.	What was the total number of persons so pensioned on December 31, 1920?
5.	What was the total number of persons of the rank of lieutenant to the rank of private, including their dependents, so pensioned on December 31, 1920?
6.	What was the total number of persons so pensioned of the rank of captain and upwards, including their dependents, on December 31, 1920?
7.	What is the percentage of (a) persons referred to in (5) above and (b) persons referred to in (6) above?
S.	What is the total amount of money paid as pension to persons of the rank of lieutenant and down to the rank of private, including their dependents, for the year ending December 31, 1920, for disability?
9.	What is the total amount of money paid as pension with respect to persons in the rank of captain and upwards, including their dependents, for the year ending December 31, 1920, for disability?
10.	What is the percentage of the money so paid to the whole, with respect of (a) persons referred to in (8) above, and (b) persons referred to in (9) above?
11.	If the sum paid with respect to the above pensions were equalized throughout all ranks, by what amount per year would the pensions of lieutenants to privates and their dependents be increased?


Hon. Mr. REID:: 1.	Yes, with the addition of the bonuses payable during the year commencing September 1, 1920.
2.	They are based primarily upon the extent of the disability as in other cases, but vary in accordance with the rank held when the disability was incurred.
3.	$18,212,506.16.
4.	55,084.
5.	Disability-pensioners, 53,854; wives, 26,913; children, 37,373; total, 118,140.
6.	Disability-pensioners, 1,230; wives, 730; children, 993; total, 2,953.
7.	(a) 97.55 per cent; (b) 2.45 per cent.
8.	$17,713,913.16.
9.	$498,575.00.
10.	(a) 97.26 per cent, (b) 2.74 per cent.
11.	$1.71 per annum.


EXPENSES OF LEAGUE OF NATIONS- CANADA'S SHARE
Mr. PREVOST:: 1.	What share has Canada to assume towards the expenses of the League of Nations?
2.	What are the costs of representation incurred by Canada for the year 1920 in respect of the League of Nations?
3.	Is the Canadian Government paying any salaries whatsoever to a staff in connection with the League of Nations?


Sir HENRY DRAYTON:: 1.	The Dominion is assessed as a contributor of the first class and the proportionate share of expenses to be paid is 25/478 of the total expenses of the League.
2.	Assessment 523,000 gold francs on basis of 5.1826 francs to the dollar.
3.	No payment other than assessment as above stated.


POST OFFICES IN CANADA
Mr. RINFRET:: 1.	What is the total number of post offices in the Dominion.
2.	What is the number by provinces?
3.	What is the number of boxes in use for rural delivery (a) in the Dominion, (b) by provinces?


Hon. Mr. DOHERTY:: 1.	12,216.
2.	Ontario, 2,576; Quebec, 2,284; Nova Scotia, 1,839; New Brunswick, 1,133; Prince Edward Island, 136; British Columbia, 832; Manitoba, 796; Alberta, 1,183; Saskatchewan, 1,411; Yukon, 20; Mackenzie River District, 6.
3.	(a) 192,733; (b) Prince Edward Island, 8,490; Nova Scotia, 6,031; New Brunswick, 7,972; Quebec, 37,846; Ontario, 117,927; Manitoba, 3,488; Saskatchewan, 3,135; Alberta, 4,233; British Columbia, 3,611.


CREDITS TO ROUMANIA AND GREECE
Mr. KNOX:: 1.	What credits have been extended by the Canadian Government to Roumania and Greece?
2.	What portion of these credits have been used?
3.	What goods have been purchased therewith?
4.	Did the Government supervise the placing of the orders for such goods?
5.	Were all the goods supplied made in Canada?
6.	If not, what were the exceptions and where were the foreign made goods produced?
7.	Has Roumania ordered any locomotives in Canada on these credits?
8.	If so, from whom, how many, and at what prices?
9.	Are these locomotives being made in Canada?
10.	If not, where are they being made, by whom and at what price?
11.	At what price will deliveries of any such locomotives be made to Roumania?


Sir HENRY DRAYTON:: 1.	Roumania $25,000,000 by agreement dated March 6, 1919. Greece, $25,000,000 by agreement dated March 21, 1919.
2.	As of February 28, 1921-Roumania $22,571,227.23, Greece $7,475,073.59.
3.	In the case of Roumania-Wheat, churns and butter workers, binder twine, bags and twine, agricultural binders and parts, paints, varnishes and brushes, roofing, rails, edged tools, steel rails and accessories, pig iron, cotton yarn, cotton textile, woollen goods, men's suits, shirts and overalls. In the case of Greece-Blankets, dubbin, revolver holsters, curry combs, wax candles, brushes, belts, boots, sweaters, braces, men's clothing, leather, military cloth and equipment and denim.
4.	All purchases supervised by the Canadian Trade Commission.
5.	Yes.
6.	Answered by No. 5.
7.	No.
8.	9, 10 and 11. Answered by No. 7.


DISTRIBUTION OP PURE-BRED ANIMALS IN SASKATCHEWAN
Mr. REID (Mackenzie) :: 1.	What is the name of the official in charge of the distribution of pure-bred animals in Saskatchewan, where does he reside, what salary is he -being paid, and how long has he been in the employ of the Government?
2.	How many assistants does he employ, what are their names, where do .they reside and what wages are they being paid?
3.	How many pure-bred sires have the Government distributed in Saskatchewan, what is their average age, whalt is the average price paid for same and what breeds are used?
4.	In what districts are said pure-bred animals distributed?
5.	What disposition is made of pure-bred sires when considered valueless for breeding purposes ?


Hon. Mr. TOLMIE:: 1.	Dr. J. P. Creamer,* Qu'Appelle, Sask.; $2,000 per year; since July 1, 1913.
2.	Dr. Creamer personally employs the following parties temporarily as required in connection with the shipment and removal of sires: J. Atkinson, T. Freer, Wm. Harris, Wm. Plumb, all of Qu'Appelle. They receive $6 per diem when so employed, they paying their own living expenses.
3.	Sires distributed in Saskatchewan to December 31, 1921, comprise:
Bulls-Shorthorn, 521; Hereford, 51; Aberdeen Angus, 34; Holstein, 26; Ayrshire, 7; Red Polled, 4; total, 643. Age at time of purchase, from 18 to 30 months; average price, $161.
Rams-Shropshire, 5; Oxford Down, 4; Leicester, 4; total, 13. Average price, $30; age at time of purchase, ram lambs and yearlings.
Boars-Yorkshire, 25; Berkshire, 40; Poland China, 9; Duroc Jersey, 11; Tam-worth, 1; total, 86. Age at time of purchase, 6 to 12 months; average price, $33.
4.	These animals are distributed in outlying and backward districts where purebred sires are not available.
5.	An animal that has outlived his usefulness as a sire is disposed of for meat.
*In charge also of distribution work in Manitoba.


MR. SYDNEY SMITH
Mr. EULER:: 1.	What is the name of the person who replaced Mr. Sydney Smith in -the Post Office Department?
2.	Is the said person a British subject?
3.	If so, is -he so by birth or by naturalization?
4.	If by naturalization, what is the country of his birth ?
5.	How long has he lived in Canada?
6.	When was he naturalized?


Right Hon. Mr. DOHERTY:: 1>
2, 3, 4, 5 and 6. The position occupied by Mr. Sydney Smith has been abolished as has also the position of Purchasing Agent, and the duties of the two have been joined under the title of Superintendent of Equipment and Supplies, and Mr. J. H. Lewis has been temporarily appointed as acting head. Mr. Lewis is a British subject by birth and has resided in Canada during the last 38 years.


EXCISE TAXES ON TOBACCO
Mr. GERVAIS:: 1.	On page 512 of the Canada Year Book, 1919, one of the items In the Canadian Excise

Tariff reads as follows: "Tobacco, per pound .	.	.	20c." and another reads:	"Canadianraw leaf and unstemmed tobacco, per pound .	.	.	5c."2.	In what cases do each of the above excise taxes apply?


Hon. Mr. WIGMORE:: 1.	20 cents per pound on manufactured tobacco in all cases as provided per section 279 of the Inland Revenue Act as amended May 24, 1918.
2.	5 cents per pound on unstemmed Canadian raw leaf as provided per section 328a, paragraph 3, of the Inland Revenue Act as amended May 24, 1918.



CANADA HIGHWAYS ACT

Mr. FRIPP:: 1.	For how many highways in the province of Ontario has a project statement been approved by the Minister of Railways for Federal grants under the Canada Highways Act, chapter 54 of the Statutes of Canada, 1919?
2.	What are the highways in respect to which agreements for Federal aid have been reached between the province of Ontario and the Minister of Railways?
3.	Have any sums been paid to the province of Ontario for the new Ottawa-Prescott road?
4.	If so, what is the total amount up to 31st of December, 1920?
5.	Has any understanding been reached with the Ontario Government respecting the surface finish of this highway; whether it is to be concrete, water-bound macadam, gravel, tarvia or other material? If so, what?
6.	What is the estimated amount of Federal aid to the Ottawa-Prescott road?


Hon. Mr. REID:: 1.	17.
2.	Ottawa-Point Fortune; Ottawa-Prescott; Prescott-Brockville; Brockville-King-ston; Kingston-Belleville; Belleville-Whit-by; Yonge Street, Toronto-Bradford; Dun-das Street, Toronto-Hamilton; Queenston Road, Hamilton-Stoney Creek; Stoney Creek-Queenston; Hamilton-Jarvis; Hamil-ton-Bradford; Brantford - Woodstock; Woodstock-Ingersoll; Ingersoll - London; London-St. Thomas; London-Stratford.
3.	Yes.
4.	Nothing had been paid up to December 31, 1920, but under authority of an Order in Council of February 25, $74,320.31 was paid by cheque on March 15.
5.	Surface finish, cement concrete or bituminous macadam.
6.	40 per cent of the amount which in the opinion of the minister is the actual necessary and reasonable cost. The Highway Department of the Ontario Government estimates the cost at $1,790,879.



TAXATION FORMS-REVISION BY DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE

Mr. TOBIN:: 1.	Were the forms of the Taxation Branch, Department of Finance, submitted to the Department of Justice for revision before being printed and issued?
2.	Did the Department of Justice concur in Form T 4, 1919, and particularly the following sentence: "Amount paid into Retirement Fund under the Civil Service Superannuation and Retirement Act must not be deducted from income of members of the Civil Service?"
3.	Under what authority does the Commissioner of Taxation refuse to recognize the claim of Civil Servants that deductions from their salaries under Section 27, Chap. 17, R.S.C., are not susceptible to income tax?


Sir HENRY DRAYTON:: 1.	No.
2.	No.
3.	"Income" as defined by section three,
subsection one:	"Annual-gain-as being
wages, salary or other fixed amount- directly or indirectly received by a person from any office or employment."
See Smyth vs. Stretton (1904) 90 L.T. 756.



INTERNATIONAL FINANCIAL CONFERENCE

*Mr. TRAHAN:: 1.	Who represented Canada at the International Financial Conference at Brussels held in that city fro. September 24 to October 8, 1920?	.
2.	Have these representatives presented a report to the Government?
3.	Is it the intention of the Government to communicate the said report to the House and distribute copies of same to the members?
4.	If so, when will this be done?
5.	If not, why?


Sir HENRY DRAYTON:: The gentlemen who represented Canada at the International Financial Conference at Brussels were the hon. the Minister of Militia and Defence, (Mr. Guthrie) Mr. G. C. Cassels, and Mr. J. H. Gundy. A report has been made by the conference and has been tabled. In answer to the question whether it will be distributed, I may say that it is not the intention to do so as the report is too voluminous to print.



CAPTAIN HENRY C. ADAMS

Mr. CURRIE:: 1. Has the attention of the Government been drawn to the following press despatch published in the Ottawa Citizen of the 16th instant,
Capt. Adams Did Not Rebuke Canadians.
Report of His Speech at Vancouver Wrong
Vancouver, March 15-In a despatch sent out last night, Captain Henry C. Adams, of the Canadian naval squadron, was incorrectly reported to have said in a speech at the Canadian Club luncheon that England was paying $17 a head for maintenance of the navy, an'

that it was time that Canada stepped into the bleach and assumed her fair share of the burden. This remark was made by Gordon C. Jackson, secretary of the Dominion Navy League.
2. In view of the aspersion cast upon Captain Adams by an honourable member of this House, based upon the erroneous information referred to in the foregoing despatch, as reported in Hansard of the 15th instant, will the Government take measures to ensure that Captain Adams is publicly exonerated from the reflections thus made upon his discretion as a Naval Officer?


Arthur Meighen: The remarks which the question intimates constituted an aspersion consisted in a question to the Government as to whether its attention had been drawn to certain remarks attributed to Captain Adams in a newspaper, and whether, if such reirtarks had been made, any disciplinary action was contemplated by the Government. As appears from the question which the hon. member has done us the service to put on the Order Paper, the remarks were not made. There does not appear to be any aspersion, at all events any which the Government has power to remove.



QUESTIONS PASSED AS ORDERS FOR RETURNS

Mr. WRIGHT:: 1.	What number of cars, locomotives and rolling stock generally, were ordered by the Government during the calendar years 1918, 1919 and 1920?
2.	What was the value of these orders?
3.	From whom was this equipment purchased, and what was the value of each contract?


Mr. CANNON:: 1.	'Who are the medical officers employed at the head office of the Board of Pension Commissioners at Ottawa?
2.	What are the names and what has been the medical experience of each?
3.	How many of these medical advisers have completed their university course, and (a) What are their names; (b) How many have obtained their diplomas permitting them to practise; (c) Have any among them obtained their license to practise in recognition of their war service?
4.	What is the military record of each of these officers?
5.	What is the salary of. each?
6.	What are their respective duties?
7.	Have these medical advisers the medical experience sufficient to decide on technical ques-' tions for the Board of Pension Commissioners and are they well qualified to change the decision of local medical officers?
8.	Are the Commissioners obliged to concur in the decision of their medical officers?
9.	If not, why?



UNOPPOSED MOTIONS FOR PRODUCTION OF PAPERS

Mr. MURPHY:: For a copy of all reports made by Arthur * Young and Co., and Griffenhagen and Associ-

ates, and of all communications sent by the said firms to the Civil Service Commission relative to the Department of Public Printing and Stationery, and of all correspondence between the Civil Service Commission and the Department of Public Printing and Stationery, or any official thereof, relative to such reports and communications.


Mr. DAVIDSON:: For a copy of all letters and correspondence exchanged between professors or officials of Acadia University and the Department of Mines since February 1, 1920, to date, relative tc the employment of students of the said University by the said Department during the summer months?



GRANTS TO AGRICULTURAL SHOWS

Mr. JOSEPH ARCHAMBAULT (Cham-bly and Vercheres) moved:: Whereas, the regulations of the Department of Agriculture provide, in connection with autumn shows of domestic animals and poultry, that agricultural societies which have spent a minimum amount of $3,600 of their own money in their preceding show for the granting of prizes to the above classes of exhibits, will be entitled to a minimum grant of $2,500 from the Department of Agriculture.
Whereas, in fixing a sum of $3,600 as a minimum of expenses for the obtention of a grant the department does not encourage in any way the small local fairs held in counties which as an average distribute about $500 in prizes for aforesaid classes of exhibits.
In the opinion of this House it is expedient to amend the present regulations by reducing the minimum to $500, and by entitling the said fairs to the two-thirds of the amount expended in the previous year, this fraction being given as a grant providing that the amount expended was at least $500.	^
He said: Mr. Speaker, the object of this resolution is apparent as the motion speaks for itself, and it is my intention to be very brief in the remarks which I purpose to make in support of it. In passing, I may remark that this is another non-partisan resolution. Its purpose is to encourage local and county exhibitions of domestic animals and poultry. As the lAgulations of the department now stand, it is provided that, in connection with the autumn shows of domestic animals and poultry, agricultural societies which have spent a minimum of $3,600 of their own money in their preceding show in the granting of prizes to the above classes of exhibits shall be entitled to a minimum grant of $2,500 from the Department of Agriculture. Now, there are no local or county shows of domestic animals and poultry which have ever spent as large an amount of $3,600 as a minimum for prizes, and I understand that this year the minimum has been raised by the minister to $4,000. I have a list here of the counties surrounding my district, with the respective sums distributed last year in prizes. In the

county of La Prairie the amount was $600.05; in the county of St. John, $441.25; in the county of Napierville, $414.50; in the county of Rouville, $597.20; in the county of Chambly, $741.45; and in the county of Vercheres, $801.
These regulations may be all right for provincial and regional exhibitions, but the fixing of a minimum of $3,600 or $4,000 altogether precludes the local or county exhibitions from any share of the grants made by the Federal Government to agricultural societies. To prove my contention, I may say that I am informed by the department that last year in Canada there were only twenty or twenty-one exhibitions or shows of the kind which got the Federal grant. In my province there were only five. These were the exhibitions at St. Scholastique, Sherbrooke, Three Rivers, Ormstown, and Quebec. The exhibition at St. Scholastique is a regional exhibition in which practically four, five, or six counties participate. At Sherbrooke it is an industrial exhibition, that place being a city. At Three Rivers it is the same. At Ormstown the show is a regional exhibition and at Quebec it is a provincial exhibition. I surmise that in the other provinces the same thing occurs- that no local or county exhibition of that kind ever gives prizes to an amount as high as the minimum fixed by the department.


Mr. EDWARDS:: Does the provincial
government of Quebec give grants to these smaller fairs on the basis of the prize money paid out?


Joseph Archambault: The provincial government gives prizes but not on the basis of the prize money paid out. I believe the grants are given on the basis of the number of members belonging to each agricultural society' in the proportion of two dollars for one. Nevertheless, Mr. Speaker, I believe that the Federal Government should also encourage these local and county exhibitions; I submit that they are much more deserving of support than are the regional or provincial exhibitions. My reason for making that statement is that: in the local and county shows a keen rivalry prevails between the exhibitors or farmers of the district or riding. They can go to these shows, compete against each other and have a chance to win prizes. At the regional or provincial exhibitions the awards are nearly always carried off some wealthy corporation or breeder possessing the means to purchase prize cattle and so secure the prizes. This is one of the reasons why the local shows should be encouraged.
Furthermore, the farmer of ordinary means will not exhibit at the regional or provincial shows because it means too much expense to him. These shows generally last five dr six days, and the farmer, if he wishes to exhibit at them, has in the first place to lose that period of time. Then he has to make provision for travelling expenses to the place of exhibition, which is generally situated at a distance from his farm. He has also to incur the expense involved during the five or six days that he is attending the exhibition. On the other hand the county fair, or the local show, is generally held at a place which is in the centre of the county and very close to the farmer's home, and it lasts but one day. The farmer gets up very early in the morning, goes to the local show, spends the whole day there and returns to his home the same night. I see my hon. friend from Frontenac (Mr. Edwards) laughing, but .that is what happens in my county.


John Wesley Edwards: The farmer always gets up early.


Joseph Archambault: That is true, but on the morning of the local exhibition he gets up even much earlier. As I said before, the local exhibitions should be encouraged to a greater extent than the regional or provincial shows because they result in much benefit to the farmer of ordinary means. Another reason for their encouragement is this: The regional or provincial shows require extensive buildings for exhibition purposes, while the county or local shows practically do not require buildings of any very great value. A still further reason for the encouragement of the county shows is because they are entirely agricultural in their character. You do not find at the local shows-at l&ast it is the case in the province of Quebec and I presume the same conditions prevail in the other provinces-"midway" attractions and shows which, if not of an immoral character are certainly vulgar, to say nothing of the crowd of fakirs, such as are witnessed at the provincial or regional exhibitions. Attractions of this kind very often deprive the farmers of their money, and they allure young people who would otherwise be examining the respective exhibits of the exhibition proper and deriving an educational advantage therefrom. The object of my resolution is not to do away with the grants to regional or provincial exhibitions, but simply to give more encouragement to the local and county shows. The only objection which

might be urged to its adoption, is that it would involve some additional expenditure. Well, out of the 235 counties or ridings in Canada there are about 54 urban constituencies, leaving 181 rural ridings. If I take $600 as the average amount of the prizes given in each county for these local shows, which would entitle the counties to get two-thirds, or $400, it would only involve an expenditure of $72,400. Even if I increased that average and placed it at $900, which is a pretty high figure for prizes for these shows, the two-thirds would amount to $600, and 181 counties at $600 would only represent a total of $108,600. I submit, Mr. Speaker, that the Minister of Agriculture' who is a practical man and has devoted himself with great earnestness towards promoting the welfare and development of agriculture, should agree to my resolution, for it would be a great boom for the agriculturists of this country and be decidedly to the advantage of the farming community.


Mr. THOMAS VIEN (Lotbiniere):: I beg to support the motion of my hon. friend from Chambly and Vercheres (Mr. Archambault). The other day, when discussing the estimates of the Department of Agriculture, I pointed out to the minister at the head of that department the importance of stimulating the development of agriculture through the medium of these country fairs. In the county of Lotbiniere we have the good fortune of having one of the finest country fairs in our section of the province. We have a permanent building in which are exhibited every year the products of the farmers of the county, and it is encouraging to see the zeal which the farmers display and the keenness with which they compete for the prizes which are offered. But it is not possible to offer to these farmers in the one county the sum of $4,000 which is the minimum fixed by the Department of Agriculture entitling an exhibition to a grant. If this minimum were lowered to $500, as suggested by the resolution of my hon. friend from Chambly and Vercheres, these farmers could obtain from the department a grant which would materially assist them, and would be of greater benefit to the development of agriculture than are those regional exhibitions which, as my hon. friend has just said, are more of the character of a circus than of an agricultural fair. For this reason, Sir, I think that if the hon. minister can see his way clear to get the necessary money to encourage these country fairs, he will advance IMr. Archambault.]
the interests of agriculture in a most practical way.
I do not wish to repeat what I said to the Minister of Agriculture the other day when discussing his Estimates, but I can assure him that I give my heartiest support to the resolution. And I cordially invite him to attend the agricultural exhibition at Lotbiniere next September, when he will see the progressive character of the farming population in that district, and will be convinced, I think, that the grants will be convinced, I think, that his grants have been taken full advantage of.
Mr. EMMANUEL D'ANJOU (Rimou-ski) : (Translation.) Mr. Speaker, I wish to say a word in support of the motion introduced by the hon. member for Cham-bly-Vercheres (Mr. Archambault). It is certainly one of the most interesting resolutions which have been submitted to the House during the present session.
I would not like to hurt the feelings of my hon. friend the member for Lotbiniere (Mr. Vien), but I believe that we have country fairs in Rimouski which are as fine as any in his country. Two years ago, in the county of Rimouski, county fairs were started, and all who have taken part in these agree in saying that most certainly there are none better. They are not a meeting place for amusement, a circus, they are only an exhibition of all the agricultural products which the farmers of the county may bring. If the motion introduced by the hon. member for Chambly-Verchdres were passed it would assuredly be an encouragement to our farmers who have such great sacrifices to make; such as loss of time and loss of money, in order to enter into competition in these fairs.
The district of Rimouski is certainly one of the important agricultural districts^ of the country, one of the most progressive. Our farmers are model farmers; they are attached to the earth and do their best in every circumstance to prove that they are experts in agriculture.
I do not wish to insist further, but I think that all the hon. members, and especially those who represent agricultural counties, should strongly support the resolution moved by the hon. member for Chambly-Vercheres and urge the Government to accept it. This would enhance the interest attaching to our country fairs, and besides, would encourage our agriculturists to increase production, which we so urgently need at the present time.


John Wesley Edwards: Mr. Speaker, I think the general principle of this resolution, the principle of encouraging the production of better live stock, should be supported. But the function of this Parliament is not. provincial, and it seems to me that some duty falls upon the provincial authorities to encourage these smaller fairs. In the province of Ontario such fairs are encouraged by grants from the provincial government, based upon the amount of money paid out in prizes by the several fairs. It seems to me that the sponsor of this resolution should not expect the Federal Government to go any further than the provincial governments are prepared to go in assisting these smaller fairs. For my part, I would be prepared to support a motion to the effect that the Government contribute an amount equal to the amount given by the several provincial governments in the way of grants to these fairs.
A good deal can be said in favour of the hon. gentleman's statement that the larger fairs are patronized by the wealthy stock breeders who make a business of exhibiting prize animals. I have had some little experience in connection with the smaller fairs, haying been the secretary and manager of one for a number, of years, and I may say that some fairs are open to this criticism, that very often, because they are only one-day fairs, somebody will drive in every animal he has on his farm, whether he ought to be ashamed to exhibit them or not, for the sake of getting some kind of prize. Therefore, in connection with making grants to these fairs I think it should be stipulated that expert judges be engaged, especially as our agricultural colleges are providing us with first-class men who are available for these duties. If we are to pay out federal money to encourage the production of first-class stock, we should have judges who are capable of passing an expert opinion upon that stock, and not merely some local man who will award a prize to any grade of animal, no matter whether it is worthy of a prize or not. If animals are not up to a certain standard no prizes should be given. A conscientious judge drawn from the locality in which the fair is held will often exact that high standard, but I must say, speaking from my own experience, a local judge is more apt to be influenced by his friends in the neighbourhood and to say, "Well, this animal is not quite up to the standard, but we will give it a prize anyway." I do not believe that the indiscriminate awarding of prizes encourages the production of good stock. I am in favour of some help being given by the Dominion Government to encourage the breeding of good stock, but such help should be supplemented dollar for dollar by the provincial authorities.


Mr. LEVI THOMSON (Qu'Appelle):: Mr. Speaker, I share the opinion of other hon. members that our country fairs should be encouraged in every reasonable way. But I am afraid I cannot go so far as even the hon. member for Frontenac (Mr. Edwards) in saying that the Dominion should give grants to these smaller fairs, even as supplementary to the grants given by the provinces, These smaller fairs are purely provincial or local, and this House has about enough on its hands just now without branching out into anything of this kind. I cannot agree with the hon. gentleman who introduced the resolution that so small an amount as he suggests would be required. I think I could point to as many fairs in our province as he suggests altogether; many agricultural societies there would pay out from $500 to $1,000 in prizes if they could get two-thirds of it from the Dominion. In my constituency alone there are twelve or fourteen agricultural societies. Putting it at ten and multiplying that by say two hundred constituencies in Canada, you have two thousand fairs.


Thomas Vien: Does my hon. friend understand that we speak of one fair per riding and not of agricultural societies, of which we have a number in each riding?


Levi Thomson: I am dealing with the resolution as I find it. You may call them "fairs" or "autumn shows," whichever you like-" a rose by any other name would smell as sweet." I do not think the name has anything to do with it. We call them all "agricultural societies" in our country; and we do all that sort of work through these societies. I do not think the resolution is confined to one exhibition or show for each riding; I think it would be absurd to suggest that any one agricultural riding can support only one fair of that kind. I have a good deal more faith in the progressiveness of the farmers of Canada than to believe anything of that kind.
Now, we have our agricultural fairs in Saskatchewan, and to these the province gives some assistance, as do municipalities in many cases. We have no counties



in the provinces of Saskatchewan and Alberta, so my hon. friend's remark would not apply. We have rural municipalities, and they are disposed to treat fairly the smaller exhibitions. But even at that we find it very difficult to keep these exhibitions going, and I am very sorry that is the case, because I believe that the small agricultural exhibition properly handled is very beneficial to the country. But I do not think that this House or this Government should undertake, as finances are at the present time, to give assistance in cases of that kind. To do so would take not the small sum mentioned by my hon. friend, but in the neighbourhood of a . million dollars, if the thing is to be done properly. I do not think that the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Tolmie) has a million dollars at his disposal for any purpose of that kind. I do not want to discourage my hon. friend in his desire to secure the expenditure of money for the benefit of the farmers or in support of agricultural exhibitions or shows-he may call them what he likes. It is desirable that these smaller shows should be encouraged. However, I cannot join in the request that such an expenditure be made by the Dominion because, as I have said,
I do not think we should spend money in that way, at the present time, at least.


Mr. PETER McGIBBON (Muskoka) :: Mr. Speaker, I have a great deal of pleasure in supporting the principle of this resolution, and one of the reasons why I do so has just been mentioned by the hon. member for Qu'Appelle (Mr. Thomson). That hon. gentleman says that the attendance at smaller fairs is falling away. This we all know to be the case. These small exhibition organizations have great difficulty in keeping up their prizes; and that is particularly true of all the small fairs, I think, in the province of Ontario. Many things contribute to this condition. The principal reason, I think, is found in the more general use of the automobile. Most farmers get into their cars and drive to the fair to see what their neighbours are exhibiting, while their neighbours, like themselves, have brought nothing, because it does not pay them to do so.
We know, too, that along with the progress of fairs has gone the development of ' stock. That is quite easily proved, especially in the new parts of the country where the small fall fairs are carried on. The improvement in the class of stock thus brought about is the result, largely, of competition; nothing will induce improvement [Mt. Thomson, Qu'Appelle],
in the class of stock like keen competition among neighbours in small municipalities. This does not apply to the same extent in the case of larger fairs, but if you want to improve the condition of the stock in the rural and backward parts of a province I do not know of any one thing more conducive to that end than to bring about an improvement of the calibre and the class of the fall fairs-an improvement which in itself hinges largely upon the extent of the prize list. In nearly all cases the prize list is too small to recompense a man for the trouble incidental to the exhibiting of his stock at a fair. I think, therefore, that if Parliament could see its way clear to grant -I would not say a few hundred thousand dollars; I would not restrict it to a million, because I think it would be an investment that would be productive of splendid returns to the people of this country-if, I say, we could spend a million or a million and a half along these lines, the results during the next five or ten years would be of an extremely beneficial character. I agree with the member for Frontenac (Mr. Edwards) that anything of this kind must be worked out on a sound basis. His suggestion that the assistance to be given by the Dominion be based on the provincial grants, which, in turn, in the case of Ontario at least, are based on the amount contributed by the municipality, is a fair one. You there have some finality of responsibility; you there have a just basis upon which to build up your prize list. I do think that if this country is going to make progress and if it is to pay off its national debt, nothing will hold out such a favourable prospect in that direction as the development of our stock raising industry, and that, in turn, must be based upon the building up of higher grades of the different breeds of stock. For these reasons, Mr. Speaker, I have very much pleasure in supporting at least the principle of this resolution, and I hope that the minister may be able to carry into effect the substance of the suggestions incorporated in it.


Mr. GEORGE PARENT (Quebec West) :: Mr. Speaker, a short time ago, when the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Tolmie) had his Estimates before the House, at a late hour in the night we on this side, feeling that the minister had been kind enough to answer a good many questions, felt that we would like to give him a chance to pass a few items. Just about that time, Sir, he made the affirmation that in British Columbia a certain kind of hens had been

laying three hundred eggs per year. I take it that on a resolution of this kind, involving the discussion of exhibitions and fairs in connection with which poultry would he exhibited, we may fairly ask the minister to state to the House what kind of hens he was speaking about. I think everybody would be glad to know something more about hens that would lay three hundred eggs per year.


Mr. A. M. DECHENE (Montmagny):: (Translation.) Mr. Speaker, may I be allowed to add a few words to this discussion, now drawing to its termination, regarding the resolution introduced by the hon. member for Chambly and Vercheres (Mr. Archamhault). The object of our rural agricultural exhibitions seems to be somewhat ignored or to have gone out of sight. In our departments of agriculture, there seems to be a particular tendency to encourage poultry and cattle breeding, without taking into account the fact that agricultural exhibitions in rural districts include every one of the farm products. For instance, there is held in the district of Montmagny one of the largest country fairs in this Dominion, an exhibition that at times will last as long as three days.
The capital required for the buildings necessary for this exhibition is considerable. It is difficult to determine exactly what is the sum spent to encourage poultry and cattle breeding, and to separate it from the sum given in general as prizes for all agricultural products. The farmers who represent the mass of Canadian farmers, go in for general farming and do not specialize in any one branch. He really represents the national agricultural asset, and I believe, as was said just now by one of the hon. members on the right, that he deserves more attention than any other class of agriculturists. The one who goes in for stock-raising exclusively is usually a rich man who does not require the stimulus of these exhibitions to lead him to improve his products in quality and quantity. The large exhibitions which are now encouraged by the Department of Agriculture really serve almost any end, but that intended. The large breeders who show their animals at these exhibitions do so not so much to win prizes as to let other breeders, and farmers in general, know the quality of their products and in so doing create a market for them. This does not encourage them to breed a better quality of animals, since they take part in these
public shows simply to sell and advertise their stock. When you go to the rural fair, the district exhibition, you meet there the general farmer with all kinds of produce, who in a real spirit of rivalry tries to show that he can do better than his neighbour. His interest is not strictly commercial, nor his aim money-making. It is rather a matter of pride. He wants to show that he can do better than his neighbours, and to earn the reputation of being a model farmer in his district. I believe that this is the spirit which should be encouraged in the farmers; we should urge them to attempt to surpass each other. We would thus attain the aim of these exhibitions, which is to better the breed of our herds and poultry generally. With the present system, it is only the largest regional exhibitions which are subsidised and the people who win the prizes are not those needing encouragement. This is why the motion of the hon. member from Vercheres is doubly praiseworthy, since it tends to encourage those who really need encouragement and in bettering the agricultural output, would thus add to the asset of our country.
We have in our rural districts several kinds of agricultural exhibitions. These exhibitions count usually upon the generosity of members of Parliament, municipal councillors, priests, and they are practically dependent upon charity for the recognition of the work exhibited. To mention but a few, besides the big country fair, we have that of the farmers' gardens, in which the competitors are often young .boys or children who work a small plot of land, or who raise a few chickens or animals, hoping to win prizes furnished by generous doners in the parish. These youths, rather than farmers on a large scale, deserve to be encouraged. From their earliest years they work on the farm and try to improve their parents' stock, thus learning how to carry on this industry when they will he working for themselves. These youths will to-morrow he the men at the head of the agricultural industry, and nothing is being done to encourage them except through the friendly interest of those about them. There are exhibitions of this kind in all the parishes of our counties. We have exhibitions of domestic produce which depend also upon the goodwill of the people of the locality. Under these circumstances, I am tempted to go further than the hon. member from Vercheres, and to

ask the hon. Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Tolmie) not to limit his patronage to the large breeders of poultry and cattle, but to bring its benefits within range of all the agricultural exhibitions, in giving them, for instance, a percentage of the sum which their management offer as prizes, the amount could be fixed at 25, 30 or even 50 per cent. This would not cost the country much, would help to maintain these exhibition concerns, and would have the double advantage of giving more prizes to the exhibitors and of fostering the increased agricultural production, so necessary for the payment of our indebtedness, thus contributing to the general welfare of the country.
I understand that our friends from the West, who have immense herds and numerous horses for breeding purposes on a large scale, are not very enthusiastic over the motion of the hon. member for Chambly and Vercheres, for this motion might result in decreasing, to the benefit of the great mass of farmers, the subsidies from the hon. Minister of Agriculture and in diverting perhaps a large part of what they now obtain. I noticed, the other day, when the Estimates of Agriculture were under discussion, that nearly one half of these Estimates went to the encouragement of breeding and the care of our herds. There was a special item of one million dollars for breeding; there was an item of nearly one million dollars towards maintaining the health of the herds; all this, Mr. Speaker, in the interest of the large breeders; but the poor farmer, who has but twenty-five or thirty head of cattle, who has but eight or ten horses, who has but a more or less modest poultry-yard, derives but little benefit from these large subsidies. I believe that if the motion of the hon. member for Chambly and Vercheres were adopted the mass of farmers would be largely benefited thereby and I therefore am very happy to support it.


Mr. JOHN BEST (Duiferin) :: Mr. Speaker, if this resolution passes, every fall fair and many school fairs in Ontario will also get this grant. The resolution states that if any fair contributes $500 toward prizes, the Government shall make a grant of two-thirds. In this way it would pay the management of every fair to add a couple of hundred dollars or whatever was necessary to reach the minimum amount of $500 and if they received a grant of two-thirds of that amount, that would mean

that they would get $333 or in other words, that they would have to pay really only about $167. Therefore, it would be good financing for the management of every fair to do this in order to get the two-thirds grant.
While I believe that every encouragement should be given to these autumn fairs and to the production and improvement of stock of every kind, when municipal councils and provincial governments are making grants, there is too much of a duplication. During the past two years the present Government has been duplicating too much of the work of provincial governments, and I cannot see the benefit of that. Why should we take money, which the people in each and every province have to pay into the Dominion treasury, and hand it over to the different provinces and municipalities? Such action is all right when the work is on a broad scale such as that of our experimental farms; but if we are going to contribute to local fairs, we might as well begin to contribute to township fairs and to do township work, and if we did that I believe we would be making a mistake. No man in this House is more anxious than I am to promote agriculture in every way, but I do not think this is a wise step to take towards that end. If I interpret the resolution aright, there is no doubt that every fair in Ontario will benefit, but I understand that is not the intention of the mover of the resolution.


Joseph Archambault: May I ask the hon. gentleman a question? What I mean by my resolution is that there should be only one grant for each riding.


John Best: That would create rivalry and do harm in a constituency where there were two or three fairs. Why should the people of the Dominion of Canada be asked to contribute to one fair which is picked out and not to another? In my constituency I do not know which of the three fairs is the best; some years, one is better than the others. I think it would be unfair to ask the people belonging to one fair to subscribe towards a grant for another fair in the same constituency. I agree with the hon. member that it probably would be better if there was only one fair in each constituency; in many cases there are probably too many, but at the present time in many constituencies there are two or three fairs, and it would be very unfair to say that one fair in a particular constituency will get the grant and the other two or three will not get it.


Joseph Archambault: There is one
agricultural society-


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: Order. The hon. member's last question turned out to be an assertion of his own. I point out that when he closes the debate, he will have ample opportunity to reply.


John Best: The resolution says "fall
fairs." They are all fairs in Ontario, and, therefore, I cannot see how the grant could be honestly given to one and not to another.


Mr. E. W. NESBITT (Oxford North) :: Mr. Speaker, in what has been said by all the members of the House, there is a great deal with which I am in accord. If the Government could alford the money, the grant might benefit certain people who show cattle, pigs and chickens at country fairs, and it might, as the hon. member for Muskoka (Mr. McGibbon) said, encourage competition, although that has not been my experience to a great extent. I might suggest that a way in which the Government could easily encourage agriculture in this country more than by making grants to country fairs, would be by reducing the cost of transportation. For fear that the minister might think that everybody in this House was, at the present time at least, in favour of granting moneys to country fairs, I just take the opportunity to say that I think the country will worry along this year and perhaps next year without any additional grant to country fairs put into his Estimates, and I hope that he will not attempt to add that expense to his Estimates.


Mr. J. F. JOHNSTON (Last Mountain) :: Mr. Speaker, while I agree that everything possible should be done to assist in the development of agriculture and also in the improvement of our flocks and herds in this country, I cannot see any virtue in this resolution along that line. As pointed out by the hon. member for Qu'Appelle (Mr. Thomson), in Saskatchewan, country fairs or agricultural shows receive assistance from our provincial Department of Agriculture. That department is presided ever by a practical farmer who, I am sure, will see to it that everything of a provincial nature is done for the advancement of agriculture in that province. The hon. gentleman who moved this resolution has said that he wants it to apply just to one fair in each constituency. In the constituency of Last Mountain there are twelve
of these small fairs, and I would not like to be the one to select the particular fair which was to receive this grant. For that reason, and for the one big reason that I think this Parliament and Government should practise the strictest economy in all lines of expenditure, I am opposed to the resolution.


Hon. S. F. TOLMIE (Minister of Agriculture) :: Mr. Speaker, I have listened with a great deal of interest to what hon. gentlemen have had to say with regard to the granting of money by the Federal Government to small exhibitions. In the Department of Agriculture, we have adopted a policy of making grants to interprovincial and national shows rather than to the smaller shows. We . have always felt that the small show comes within the purview of provincial Governments which are well able to take care of such shows. We feel that the provincial Governments should do their share, and that the work of handling the small shows belongs more to a Provincial Government than to a Federal Government. I do not want for a moment to speak in any slighting way of the work that these small shows are doing. They are rendering a very valuable service to agriculture and act as feeders to the bigger shows. We are giving aid to agriculture and particularly to the livestock industry in many ways. Amongst such policies might be mentioned :
Federal aid to horse breeding-.. .. $125,000 Distribution of pure bred sires..	155,000
Record of performance for dairy
cattle	 25,000
District field work re cattle.. ..	45,000
District field work re sheep.. ..	35,000
District field work re poultry. ..." 60,000 District field work re hogs.. ..	20,000
Total	I .. $465,000
This does not by any means exhaust the list of our activities in connection . with the livestock industry. Our other work includes the co-operative marketing of livestock, wool and eggs, the replacement of scrub sires, the organization of committees to promote better business methods in production and marketing, assistance to boys' and girls' clubs in connection with the production and marketing of hogs, the supervision and operation of stock yards and stock yard exchanges, the issue of daily, weekly and yearly livestock market reports, the inspection and grading of wool and eggs, financial aid in connection with the registration of live-

stock, and the presentation of educational livestock exhibits at our different exhibitions.
Comparing the small fair with the big fair, one of the previous speakers said that the big fair did not fill a valuable niche in the progress of our livestock industry, or sonfething to that effect. Now a breeder of pure-bred cattle in a back country district may successfully exhibit his stock at a local fair and win year after year, until finally he begins to think that he has quite a good line of cattle or some other line of livestock, but when he goes.to the big fair that is assisted by the Federal Government, and where big enough prizes are offered to enable the poor man to take his stock, he meets with real competition and soon finds out that to win there he must have very much better cattle than he possesses. He is able to see a very large display of livestock there, and purchase such animals as he might think necessary to improve his herds. It is not always the big man that wins at the-big show, as has been stated. In fact, these shows have been the means of bringing out young breeders who are anxious to produce cattle of good quality, but who did not know how good their cattle were until they took them to the big shows and competed with the big breeders. There are many cases where the success of these men with their cattle at these exhibitions has been the foundation of very much greater successes in subsequent years.
I notice also that some of the bigger shows were criticised for having attractions at the show. To operate a show successfully you must have the attendance through the gate, or some other source of revenue. An exhibition that is run for a week or ten days must have a varying programme to attract all kinds of people. A great many people who go to shows are not very much interested in some of the agricultural lines, but a show in Toronto or some other big city draws people by attractions of different kinds, and the managers must take advantage of the general population that patronize these shows by having such attractions as will bring them through the gates. Once having received that money through the gates, they are able to distribute it among the stock breeders and other lines of exhibitors, to the advantage of agriculture in the long run. I have pointed out the policy of the Government in this connection. We feel we have drawn the line at a safe figure. It is our intention to assist

the inter-provincial and national show's, leaving the smaller shows to be taken care of by thep rovinces, which I think, are well able to undertake that responsibility. On these grounds, I must oppose the resolution.


Joseph Archambault: Of course, it is not my intention to press this resolution to a vote, though I felt when I brought it in, that it would be of such help to the farmers that the minister would probably accept it, and I still hope that after he has had time to investigate the matter properly, if I come back next year with the same resolution, he will agree to it.
I will now try and answer some of the objections that have been made by some hon. members. My hon. friend from Fron-tenac (Mr. Edwards), who I was very glad to see supported the resolution, raised only one objection. He stated, and the Minister of Agriculture raised the same objection, that the provincial governments should do their share in supporting the local exhibitions. That is true, and if it is the same in other provinces as in the province of Quebec, they do support these local exhibitions. My hon. friend from Fron-tenac stated that he would support my resolution if it was couched in such a way as to provide that the Federal Government would contribute the same amount that the Provincial Government did. I would agree to that, because I believe it would mean the counties would get a larger grant than they would under my resolution. I believe, and I think I can prove, that the Provincial Government grants more to the county and local shows than they would get under this resolution, which provides for only two-thirds of the amount spent in the preceding year. I do not know how it is in Ontario, but in Quebec the Government grants $2 for each member of the agricultural society. In answer to my hon. friend from Qu'Appelle (Mr. Thomson), I may say that there is only one agricultural society in each county in the province of Quebec. We have an agricultural society in the county of Chambly, for instance, and another in the county of Vercheres. There is only one in each county, to which practically all the progressive farmers belong, and as the Provincial Government grants $2 for each member of the society, I think if the suggestion of my hon. friend from Frontenac were followed, these shows would receive more than they would under the resolution now before the House.
I was greatly surprised to hear the speech of my hon. friend from Qu'Appelle.

It has been said very often that the Agrarian party was in favour of class legislation, Well, I think we had proof of that assertion this afternoon. My hon. friend is not in favour of grants to poultry and animal exhibitions, because in the West the farmers grow only grain and care only for that, practically speaking. If my resolution asked for a grant for grain exhibitions, I am sure my hon. friend would support it. He also stated it was an absurdity to think there was only one small exhibition in each rural riding. He probably did not understand that the shows mentioned in my resolution are shows only for domestic animals and poultry. Of course, we have other agricultural fairs in the province of Quebec at which grain and all kinds of cereals, and industrial products, are exhibited, but we have only one fall fair for domestic animals and poultry.
My resolution would not call for such a very large expenditure, Mr. Speaker. According to my calculations it would not amount to more than $108,600, supposing the average expenditure on the previous show to be $900. We are spending this year $19,000,000 for Militia and Defence, Naval Service and Mounted Police; then we have an item of $16,000,000 for miscellaneous. These expenditures, 'I think, might very well be curtailed in order to encourage the farmers in the development of agriculture.
I do not need to explain to my hon. friend from Dufferin (Mr. Best), that in the province of Quebec-I do not know whether it is the same in Ontario, but judging from the hon. gentleman's remarks, I do not suppose it is-there is only one agricultural society for each riding; so that it would not be hard for me to decide which society in my riding should get the grant. My hon. friend the Minister of Agriculture (Hon. Mr. Tolmie) has given us a statement which, in my opinion, reinforces my resolution. He has said that the attractions which we see at large fairs are necessary in order to bring money to those centres. That is true, and it is exactly why I desire the Minister of Agriculture to grant some money to the purely agricultural shows, which are deficient in the kind of attractions one sees in provincial or regional exhibitions. As I said before Mr. Speaker, I do not intend to press this resolution to a vote, but I trust that the Minister will take into consideration either my suggestion or that of the hon. member for Frontenac (Mr. Edwards) regarding these shows, because I am convinced that what is proposed is in
the interests of the formers of the country. For the moment I desire to withdraw my motion.
Motion withdrawn.



FUEL SUPPLY PROBLEM

Mr. MICHAEL STEELE (South Perth) moved:: That, .in the opinion of this House, the future fuel supply of Canada should be considered by Parliament, and that a Special Committee of the House of Commons should be forthwith appointed to inquire into all matters pertaining thereto, with power to send for persons, papers and records, to examine witnesses under oath and to report from time to time.
He said: When people begin discussing fall fairs it is a sure indication of the approach of cold weather, so that I take it that this a very opportune time indeed to introduce the resolution which I have placed in the Order Paper relating to the future fuel supply of Canada. Canada's climate requires the consumption of fuel for seven months of the year. Nearly every pleasure and comfort of life which we have in this country is entirely dependent upon fuel. Fuel is one of the three essentials of life, of which the other two are food and clothing. It is not only essential to the comfort and the very existence of our people in their homes, but it is absolutely indispensible to industry. Our country cannot prosper without power. The wheels of industry stand motionless and production ceases if power is not available. Power for our industries generally cannot be obtained without fuel, and Canada cannot have sufficient fuel for her needs without coal. After the interesting and enlightening discussion which took place in this House last week in regard to the natural resources of our country, it is hardly necessary for me to make much reference to the coal supplies of Canada, but I may be permitted briefly to recall to the House a few facts relating thereto. In Canada we have coal in the east and in the west, but none in the central portion of the country, so that the provinces of Ontario and Quebec have to seek elsewhere for their supplies of fuel.


Mr. LEMIEUX:: We have "white coal"
in Quebec and Ontario.


Michael Steele: Yes. In Nova Scotia and New Brunswick we have large areas of bituminous coal of good quality, while in Saskatchewan, Alberta, and British Columbia, there are immense deposits of lignite and bituminous coal and semi-anthracite. I should like to place on Hansard a state-

ment if our coal reserves, actual and probable, in the various provinces of the Dominion. In Nova Scotia the reserves amount to 10,691,000,000 tons of bituminous coal; in New Brunswick, 166,000,000 tons of bituminous coal; in Ontario, although I said we have no coal, we have, at the south of Janies Bay, a deposit which is estimated to contain 27,500,000 tons of lignite; in Manitoba there are 176,000,000 tons of lignite; in Saskatchewan, 65,793,000,000 tons of lignite; in Alberta, 1,180,000,000,000 all told, of which 845,900,000 tons is semi-anthracite, 217,918,000,000 tons, bituminous coal, and 932,053,000,000 tons of sub-bituminous, with 29,095,000,000 tons of lignite. In British Columbia there are 77,923,000,000 .tons of bituminous, and
5,715,500,000	tons of lignite. In the Yukon there are 275,000,000 tons of bituminous, and 5,159,000,000 tons of lignite, while in the Northwest territories there are 5,280,000,000. And even in the Aretice islands we have immense deposits aggregating 6,600,000,000 tons of bituminous coal.
With such immense quantites of coal in this country, aggregating 71 per cent of all the coal in the British Empire, people who have not much knowledge of the subject may well inquire how any portion of Canada can possibly suffer from a scarcity of coal. Coal is used in this country chiefly for the purposes of domestic heating and power, but it is of no use in these immense deposits unless it can be removed and transported from the mine to the range or furnace in the home, and to the boiler of the factory. From these immense coal deposits, it may be interesting to inquire for a moment, how much is being produced. In 1920, the bituminous coal produced in Canada amounted to 16,623,598 tons. Of this 2,558,174 tons were exported, leaving in this country, of Canadian production, 14,065,784 tons. Perhaps it would be interesting to give the production by provinces. In Nova Scotia, we produced in 1920, 6,395,545 tons, at an average cost of $4.44 per ton; in New Brunswick, 161,164 tons at an average cost of $5.81 per ton; in Saskatchewan, 349,860 tons at an average cost of $2.38 per ton; in Alberta, 6,859,346 tons at an average cost of $4.40 per ton; in British Columbia 2,856,920 tons at an average cost of $5.61; or a total of 16,623,598 tons costing on an average $4.65 per ton.	'
Knowing the production, it may be interesting for us now to learn what is the annual consumption of coal in Canada. In 1920 we consumed 14,065,424 tons of Canadian coal, and 18,742,542 tons of imported [Mr. Steele.l
coal, or a total of 32,807,966 tons, costing at the mines $157,345,552. This shows an increased cost over 1919 of $54,000,000, and an increased consumption as compared with 1910 of about fifty per cent. We may ask where does the balance of our coal come from? We consume only 43 per cent of Canadian coal; where does the other 57 per cent come from? It comes entirely from the United States. In 1920 the imports were, as already given, 18,742,542 tons costing $98,033,598 or an average of $5.32 per ton. We find that our imports are very rapidly increasing. In 1910, as I have already stated* we imported only
10,597,000	tons, of which 3,266,235 tons were anthracite and the balance of 7,331,747 tons bituminous. Last year our imports had increased to 18,742,542 tons. Imports of anthracite in the intervening years had increased to 4,881,313 tons, or almost fifty per cent, while the import of bituminous coal had increased 13,861,229 tons, or eighty-nine per cent over the imports of 1910.
These being the sources of our coal supply, let us look for a moment at the cost of coal to the Canadian people, and after all that is the question that is largely affecting our people to-day. The production of coal at the Canadian mines for 1920 was valued at $76,326,853, of which coal to the value of $18,014,899 was exported coal leaving for home consumption coal to the value of $58,311,954. Of the imported coal, anthracite had a value of $36,773,351, and, bituminous a value of $61,260,247 or a total import value of $98,033,598.


Mr. BELAND:: Was that for the year 1920?


Michael Steele: Yes.


Henri Sévérin Béland: Did we not import more coal from the United States last year than we produced in Canada all told, that is bituminous and anthracite?


Michael Steele: Yes, we imported last
year fifty-seven per cent of our coal and produced only forty-three per cent.


Henri Sévérin Béland: I understood the hon.
gentleman to say we produced 57 per cent.


Michael Steele: No we produced 43 per cent. The coal which Canada consumed in 1920 cost at the mines $156,345,552. Let us see how this cost compares with that of previous years. In 1910 the average cost of imported anthracite coal per ton was $4,51. In 1920 the average cost per ton was $7.53. In 1920 the initial cost of

the coal consumed in Canada-that is the cost at the mines-was $116,000,671, more than it was in 1910. But the greater part of that increase, or at least a very large part of it, was due to the great rise in the price of coal between 1919 and 1920. The increased cost in 1920 over 1919 was $59,786,303. If we calculate the increased cost last year on the retail price paid for it, we will find that the Canadian consumers paid in 1920 approximately $140,000,000 more for coal than it cost them in the preceding year, and about $240,000,000 more than it cost them in 1910. This, as I am sure the House will appreciate, is an enormous additional burden laid on the Canadian people for their supply of fuel, a larger burden than is imposed probably for all taxes levied by the federal Parliament.
Let us see how this affects the people? It not only entails a very large direct burden, which amounts to from $50 to $125 per family more than the previous year, upon the people for coal for domestic purposes to enable them to live in comfort, but it adds enormously to the cost of industrial production. Every article produced in Canada last year cost the consumer more owing to the higher price of coal. Many factories in Canada paid out in 1920 from twenty to fifty thousand dollars more for coal than they did the previous year, and many of the larger factories paid out from fifty to two hundred thousand dollars more for coal last year than they did the previous year. So that while our manufacturers and business men may complain of the Business Profits Tax and of the Income Tax, probably the heaviest burden they are bearing to-day-[DOT] if we may call it a tax-is due to the increased cost of their fuel.


Georges Parent: May I ask the hon. gentleman if that position still exists to-day?


Michael Steele: The condition is not quite so extreme as it was a few months ago, the price of coal having been considerably ' reduced in the last few months. Let me give the House an illustration of how the high price of coal affects our industrial concerns. From the annual report of the Canada Cement company, I take this reference to the coal supply:	[DOT]
For several months the company was unable to secure an adequate supply of coal to keep it running to the required capacity and earnings suffered severely. The president in his address said that the inability to obtain coal was greatly responsible for the smaller business. There was an increase of 540 per cent in coal cost over the year 1914.
That is a reliable ilustration of the increased expense which our industrial plants are subject to on account of the enhanced cost of coal. The higher freight rates and the exchange also add enormously to that cost. In the portion of western Ontario which I represent, three years ago the freight rate on a ton of coal was $2.90; to-day it is $5.29, plus exchange of $1.60, or practically $4 more than three years ago. This means for a town of 4,000 people an additional outlay of from $15,000 to $20,000 per year, most of which goes into the pockets of the United States coal operators and railways. But this is not the only difficulty which our people are experiencing at the present time; there is the additional difficulty in getting their coal at any cost. That there was a real scarcity there is no doubt, but this was partly owing to decreased production and increased demand, not at all to the diminution of our resources. It has been said that for every ten per cent increase in pay granted to the United States coal miners there was a lessening of production to the extent of ten per cent.
We in Ontario-and I am speaking now especially of Ontario-are entirely dependent upon the United States for our fuel, both for our domestic and our industrial needs. The scarcity affects the very foundation of our industrial life, and it seems to me essential that Canada should at once adopt a: policy which will make us independent of any foreign country for our fuel supply and encourage the development of our own coal resources. The scarcity of coal of recent years has been attributed to various causes, principally to labour unrest at the mines, with the tendency among the miners to reduce their output as their wages increased. The lack of cars and motive power on the railways is also a contributing cause. This scarcity of coal will undoubtedly continue for another year at least and will recur at intervals in the future. Let me read an extract from a recent number of the Coal Age, which is generally regarded as a reliable authority on the coal situation in the United States. It says:
The coal companies are figuratively sitting tight and tightening their belts. The spot market is quotable more because of the prices offered by shippers than by business closed. There seems to be a very general feeling- possibly founded on hope-that the buyer is going to stay out of the market until the last minute, and then when he does start to buy the rush will produce another sharp upswing in prices, and that next fall will witness another repetition of serious car shortage.

I believe that that opinion is shared very largely by the coal dealers of this country, based possibly on their experiences of last year, and possibly on their fears regarding next year's supply. What did we find last year? In July coal was being offered retail in western Ontario around $15, and $15.50 a ton; three or four months later it was selling at $22 a ton and almost impossible to be obtained at that price. We all know there was no legitimate reason whatsoever for that substantial increase. But what is supposed to have been the real cause of that sharp advance? It was the scarcity of coal in Canada, especially in Ontario, due to the causes which I have already given. Our people had to have coal, and our dealers felt that they had to pay whatever prices would secure them the coal. While the straight line coal companies were unable to supply our dealers, the independent coal companies, who control a very large percentage of the output in Pennsylvania and the other coal fields of the United States, took advantage of the demands from Ontario and possibly from other parts of Canada also, and would sell coal only when they secured the maximum price offered by any dealer who was urgently in need of coal.
Now, as I have said, that scarcity will return, with all the distressing incidents which we experienced in 1917 and 1918. We all remember those heatless days which were necessarily imposed upon us, when we had to submit to restrictions on the amount of fuel in certain industries, when we were permitted to have only a certain minimum of coal in our cellars, when we were obliged to use bituminous coal instead of anthracite, when we were forced to use wood whenever obtainable, and when even we had to practise the strictest economy in the consumption of gasolene. Those distressing days are sure to return, perhaps not next year or even the following year, but the conditions surrounding our fuel supply are certain to result sooner or later in a recurrence of the 1917 and 1918 inconveniences.
With such abundant resources, and with such urgent need, we should prepare to meet the issue unflinchingly and effectively. And now is the time to do it, not when we are looking for a supply of coal for our furnaces as the cold weather comes on. Now is the time to prepare, not for next winter merely, but for five years from now, when conditions will be more acute, and for ten years from now, when they will be still more acute than they are to-

day. In time of peace prepare for war. In time of plenty prepare for scarcity.
Let me make some further references to the situation in Ontario. One of the substitutes for coal is electric power, and to-day Ontario is using about 1,000,000 horse power of electric energy. It is estimated that each horse power takes the place of about ten tons of coal. Therefore if Ontario were not using that 1,000,000 horse power she would require an additional 10,000,000 tons of coal for her industries. Let us suppose that that was the situation. With the knowledge which we have to-day of transportation conditions on our railways and on the American railways, how could those railways possibly handle that additional
10.000.	000 tons? It would be an absolute impossibility. But some people may say, "Oh, well, we have 1,000,000 horse power of electric energy and we do not need to worry about that." No, we do not need to worry about that. But let us look ahead for another ten years when Canada will require at least 50,000,000 tons of coal instead of 33,000,000 tons as at present; how are we going to provide for that additional
16.000.	000 tons? To-day it requires about
1,000	locomotives and 23,000 freight cars to handle our coal supply, which is one-fifth of all the freight transported by our railways. To handle another 16,000,000 tons would necessitate an increased equipment of about fifty per cent. Are our railways prepared to do that within ten years? Is the Government prepared to increase on our national railways the equipment for coal hauling purposes to the extent of fifty per cent within the next ten years? That is the problem which we have before us if we are going to supply the people of Canada with their necessities in the fuel line fen years from now. Again I say it is time that the Canadian people and this Parliament representing the Canadian people should give serious thought to the problem of our fuel supply in the future.
I have shown that there is an abundance of coal in Canada. Now I come to speak particularly of the needs of Ontario and Quebec, within whose boundaries no coal exists that can be used for commercial purposes. These two provinces, however, are the largest consumers of coal, and sometimes we are almost forced to the belief that in this matter nature seems to have made a mistake. British Columbia, Alberta, Saskatchewan, Nova Scotia and New, Brunswick have no difficulty in obtaining their supply. Manitoba has had some difficulty; she has suffered in the past, but

with Alberta coal being shipped there in increasing quantities, it would seem that that province has solved its fuel problem.
I would point out that in 1920 Manitoba took 516,198 tons of Alberta bituminous coal, 200,000 tons more than in the previous year. As only 98,629 tons of Alberta coal were consumed in Manitoba in 1916, it is evident that the people of that province are giving the preference to Alberta coal. This is as it should be. The freight rate to Winnipeg on Alberta coal is $5 a ton, and no exchange, a much lower cost than that incurred by the Ontario people when they import American coal. As the Alberta mines have a capacity to produce 12,000,000 tons yearly and as they now produce only about 6,000,000 tons, there is no reason why Saskatchewan and Manitoba need worry about their fuel supply in the near future. The briquetting of Saskatchewan lignites offers another relief, and it may be that these briquettes will in time be commercially available as far east as the upper lakes of Ontario.
As I have said, Ontario and Quebec are the two provinces which are faced by a real fuel problem. Ontario is the one province of the Dominion entirely dependent on the United States supply. Quebec, by water transportation, was prior to the war able to secure Nova Scotia coal as far west as Montreal. While this traffic was arrested during the war, there are indications that it will be resumed and in this way even Quebec may be able to supply
4 p.m. herself with Canadian coal. Ontario alone seems at present completely isolated in respect of her fuel supply -the largest consumer and the most completely cut off from the coal-producing provinces. We consume in Ontario about forty per cent of all the coal used in Canada. The reasons for this are our large population, the gradual exhaustion of. our wood supply, and the extensive and numerous industrial plants in the province. I would like at this stage to read some extracts from a letter which I received from a very prominent retail coal merchant in western Ontario, a director of the Retail Coal Association, in which he outlines the difficulties more clearly than I can. I will read part of his letter. Speaking for the retail coal dealers, he says:
We have learned to our cost that we are entirely at the mercy of the United States wholesaler, both as to the quantity of coal which we can secure, and also as to the quality and price of the product shipped during times of great scarcity. This has been the universal experience of all the coal merchants throughout the country.
The price on Pennsylvania anthracite ranged all the way from $8 to $17 per ton at the mines according as the necessities of the coal merchants might compel him to pay, and if a merchant made a trip to the mines, he found others there ahead of him and the coal was in fact auctioned to the highest bidder.
Moreover, the middlemen were not the only offenders. These prices were actual mine prices from independent mine owners. Ordinary mine run bituminous coal also varied in price during the past season from $3.50 per ton to $12.75 (in extreme cases) per ton at the mines. It was an absolute holdup by the United States operators and the prices demanded from Canadian importers largely fixed the price for the United States citizens themselves, and as a result, a very serious effort was made to have shipments to Canada cut off altogether. You can readily see how absolutely helpless our people would be in such an emergency. This condition, it may be urged, is largely a case of manipulation on the part of the United States operators, but whether this is so or not, the results are exactly the same. Had this winter been a severe one, untold suffering would have undoubtedly followed, as shipments have not been nearly so heavy as in other years. During last fall and summer, when the situation continued so threatening, we endeavoured to get a price on Canadian coal from Alberta, but the best all-rail rate of freight which we could get was $20.50 per ton which, of course, precluded any private individual or company from taking any chances in connection with the undertaking.


Mr. MORPHY:: Can the hon. member give the price of coal, mine run, in Alberta at that time?


Michael Steele: Four dollars and forty
cents at the mine. So that a real problem exists in Ontario. Now, the question comes to,us, how can this problem be met? I admit at once that there is difficulty in finding any satisfactory solution. We must have coal. How are we to get it when we need it, and how can we reduce the quantity consumed, are the two questions which I think we must consider.


Mr. MACLEAN (South York) :: Or the question of a substitute.


Michael Steele: The question of reducing the quantity consumed would include that of employing substitutes. Undoubtedly, the most promising source of our supply apart from the United States is Nova Scotia, but at present our railways cannot transport coal from that province as cheaply as the railways can carry coal from Pennsylvania, a much shorter distance. What are the possible remedies, then? First, to conserve coal. This is a remedy for many evils, a remedy which the people are slow to take advantage of. But I may be permitted here to suggest some reasons why coal should be conserved, thus limiting as much as possible the amount required.

It is generally assumed that there is enormous waste in the consumption of coal, both for domestic and for industrial purposes. The United States Bureau of Mines say that thirty-five per cent of the coal is wasted up the chimney in the average boiler plant, in some cases much more than that. Even in our homes there is vast waste through the people not having an intelligent understanding of how to fire their furnaces and ranges. A great saving can be effected by a campaign of education among our people along these lines. Another thing which I think might be done to conserve our coal and to reduce the quantity required is to have coal sold by test. Almost everything that we buy or sell nowadays is sold subject to test or according to certain standards; why we should pay the mine owners of Pennsylvania for ash and slate, pay transportation, say, to Ontario, carry that ash and slate into our cellars and from there into our furnaces and then carry it out to the ash heap, is a matter which I cannot understand. I believe the day has come, owing to the scarcity of coal and the efforts of coal miners to sell the whole output without grading it at all, when our Government should protect our people, if possible, by having the coal which is imported in Canada and that which is produced in Canada sold according to test.
Another way and one of the most important ways in which we can reduce the quantity of coal required is by waterpower development. Ontario uses about 1,000,000 horsepower of electrical energy annually, and this is a substitute for about 10,000,000 tons of coal. Therefore, the more electrical energy that we qtilize, the less coal we shall need. With the completion of the Chippawa-Queenston power canal, in Ontario we shall have enough power from hydro-electric sources, it is estimated, to supply practically every plant west of the Trent valley system. The quantity of power required in eastern Ontario and not yet provided for is perhaps comparatively small when compared with that in western Ontario; but possible power development along the St. Lawrence is quite sufficient to meet all needs. While all the power that can be developed there may not be required-


Georges Parent: When the hon. member mentions "all needs", does he mean for industrial purposes or for heating purposes?


Michael Steele: Only for industrial purposes. I think it is recognized that for heating our homes, electrical energy is not. at all suited. It is estimated that about five horse-power would be required for each individual, and that would make electrical energy for heating very expensive. The surplus electrical energy, which could be developed along the St. Lawrence and which would not be needed for industrial plants, could very well be used in the electrification of our railways. Our railways are using about 25 per cent of the coal which is consumed in this country. Every horsepower of electrical energy which can be used on our railways dispenses with the transportation of about ten tons of coal, and that is a very considerable item in our transportation problem. If we can electrify our railways, we reduce the quantity of coal which will be required and also the quantity of transportation service which we are demanding of our railway system. Another consideration which we must not lose sight of is that, as the days go by and as a greater development takes place, electrical energy will undoubtedly be lowered in price, while the price of coal will, undoubtedly, increase. Therefore, it seems time that we should be giving attention to the substitution of electrical power for coal wherever that is found to be practical or possible. As regards the supply of anthracite in the United States, let me point out that Ontario and Quebec have no other source of anthracite available than the United States. It is estimated by the Geological Survey of that country that their anthracite resources will be exhausted in fifty years, and long before that time we can well understand the people of the United States will insist on their anthracite coal being reserved for their own purposes, and probably export will be prohibited. Another possible means of reducing the quantity of coal required is by adopting central heating plants. While I am not prepared to say very much about that at the present time, on enquiry T find that engineers estimate that, by the adoption of central heating plants in the centres of population, the cost of heating our homes and business blocks can be reduced by 50 per cent, so that this is a matter that is well worthy of consideration by our larger municipalities. Another remedy, and one which the Government can, perhaps, do much to apply, is the supplying of sufficient cars to ensure that

the people of Canada will have their coal transported from the mines to their homes. It is generally acknowledged that much of the scarcity of recent years has been due to car shortage. I am not familiar enough with all the details of that to be able to explain why there should be a shortage; but undoubtedly there has been a shortage, and if it were possible for the Government and our railways to see that there are always sufficient cars at the mines to get the supply of coal which is demanded for our needs, shipped from the mines, very much would be done to relieve the shortage of next winter, and the time to take that action is in the next three or four months, not next fall. As I have said, 33,000,000 tons of coal were consumed in Canada last year, and that was practically all handled by our railways for a greater or less mileage. When I point out that the total number of tons of freight handled by the Canadian National railways last year was only 27,504,000, that gives an illustration of what a tremendous problem it is for our railways to handle our coal supplies. If the Canadian National railways had done nothing more last year than handle the coal of Canada, they would have handled over 5,000,000 tons of freight more than they handled of all freight on their whole system. The railways consumed 7,400,000 tons of coal in 1919, or 38 per cent of the total; our factories consumed 8,000,000 tons in that year.
I was. going to say a few words as to the substitution of oil for coal, but, perhaps, we are not ready in this country at the present time to think of that. It is a substitute for coal as fuel, but the oil scarcity on this continent is even more acute than the scarcity of coal. It is estimated that within five years from now the United States will be purchasing
500.000.	000 barrels annually from the British Empire. They are to-day importing about 100,000,000 barrels over and above their own production. Their consumption is increasing at the rate of
100.000.	000 barrels a year, so that we can see what a tremendous scarcity there is likely to be on this continent.
None of the remedies, however, which I have suggested, meet the urgency of the immediate future. What is concerning the Ontario people at this moment is their supply of coal for next winter. We need
16.000. 000 tons of coal within the next twelve months. How are we going to get it at a price that will not be too oppressive?
Are we to be forced to contribute another $100,000,000 to American interests, while our mines are idle and our railways incurring a deficit of $70,000,000 a year from lack of traffic; or are we going to take such steps as can be taken to ensure that our people'will get the 16,000,000 tons of coal, and at a price which will be as reasonable as it is possible to obtain the coal at? To my mind, we, as a Parliament, should make every possible effort to see that our people are not overcharged for their fuel supplies, even by American producers, and if it is necessary that the coal should be transported from Nova Scotia to Ontario at the cost of transportation I think our Government railways at least should be utilized for that purpose. If that be impossible, if there is no remedy available, the only thing that remains is that the Ontario people will have to be burdened with this enormous cost of our fuel supply for a few years to come, and the burden will gradually become more oppressive. I would just like to raise my voice at this moment in this House in requesting that this question be given the very best and closest consideration. No problem has ever arisen for which a solution has not been found, and if we cannot find a solution for this one, let it not be said that a solution was not found because we did not make an effort to find it.
I have included in this resolution a request that a special committee of this House be appointed to take this matter into consideration. I think that is a wise request. Let us look into the matter; that is what Parliament is for; let us see what information we can get, so that we may be in a position to advise Parliament as to what steps are possible. Then we may expect that these steps, if such are found, will be taken.


Mr. D. L. REDMAN (East Calgary) :: Mr. Speaker, I wish to second the resolution which has just been brought in by my hon. friend from South Perth (Mr. Steele), but before speaking in support of it I feel that not only myself but the House generally should congratulate the hon. member for having brought up this important subject and especially congratulate him for the very great care which he has taken in looking into the subject, and in amassing and putting before the House in such excellent order for the use of hon. members all the information which he has given.

I need say nothing, after the speech of the hon. member, as to the general importance to Canada of this question. I presume that practically the question is this: How far, and to what extent, can we make the supplies of coal which lie more or less at the two extremes of Canada come towards each other with a view to meeting, as far as possible, the requirements of Central Canada? Whatever the interest of the province of Alberta may be in tl?e general question, I think it would be quite true to say that its interest will be greater in regard to the question of how much coal it can sell to the rest of Canada.
I need not say anything to this House, because the information is already in its possession as to the almost unlimited quantities of coal which we ha.ve in that province, nor as to the quality, because we have there all qualities of coal. It is entirely a question, therefore, of the area within which that coal can economically be marketed. In the last few years the market for Alberta coal has been extended through Saskatchewan and Manitoba. We have not yet completely captured the Manitoba market, and many improvements must be made by us in our methods of production, and some improvements in transportation facilities, before that market is entirely ours; but we have proven that our coal can economically compete with Pennsylvania coal in the province of Manitoba, and I think that when we get proper production methods and proper transportation arrangements it will be proven that our coal can more than compete in Manitoba with the Pennslyvania product.
Then we come to the wider question, a question on which I am not going to have the temerity to-day to make any prohesies or to give any promises, and that is whether or not Alberta coal can come further east than Manitoba. We might, however, consider for a moment the factors which would influence such a result. In the first place, the question of the cost of production might well be looked into. It is a significant fact that while most of the fundamental products, grain, for instance, have been reduced in price during the last year, the price for coal has not only stayed up but has even increased. The Dominion Government has assumed and exercised a certain amount of supervision and control over the labour question in the Alberta mines, and that question is an important factor in the cost of production. In fact, the cost of production of Alberta coal, has almost doubled in the last few years. It is now [11t. D. L. Redman. East Calgary],
given at something over $4. The coal itself, as far as the leases are concerned, has practically no value unless it can be sold, so the cost of production is simply the labour and the equipment which brings it forth. A committee of this House could well consider this question, as the Dominion Government has already assumed some control in regard to the question of the cost of labour that is involved in the production of our coal.
But the more important matter, in fact the real question in considering the market which our coal could reach, is the question of transportation. Here again, we find that transportation rates have not gone down this last year, and again we are met by the question of labour. Now whatever may be the relation of market transportation costs generally. I would like to say this:	A
proposal has been made from Alberta in the last two years that during the summer months, when the' freight cars in Alberta and Western Canada are not being used in transporting the grain crop, and when there is not any congestion, when there is, in fact, not sufficient traffic to keep our railroads busy, these cars could be economically used in bringing our coal eastward at a considerably reduced rate as compared with the rate which prevails throughout the rest of the year. I think it has been proven that that can be economically done. It would cheapen the cost of production in that it would give labour all the year around to the miners; it would avoid congestion in the winter time, when the transportation of all products is more difficult, and when the grain is coming eastward. If some such arrangement as this were made, I think it would enable us perhaps to widen our market, and in any event deliver our coal more cheaply throughout the province of Manitoba.


William Findlay Maclean: Does my hon. friend mean to say that freight cars used for the transportation of grain can be used economically for the transportation of coal?


Daniel Lee Redman: Oh yes, we do that out
there. In fact, in Western Canada we use box cars more than any other kind for shipping coal. I have only to add that I think a parliamentary committee would be an excellent organization to consider such a subject as this. I can think of no argument why committees of this House should not consider more subjects than they do.
I think myself, and I think other hon. members agree, that our time is often much

better spent in getting together in a committee and going to the root of some question, than in making or listening to general remarks in this House on many subjects.
So that, having regard to the importance of the subject, not only to-day but in view of future needs, I would seriously urge that the resolution brought forward to-day by the hon. member for Perth (Mr. Steele), be very favourably considered by the Government.	i


Mr. D. C. ROSS (West Middlesex) :: I
desire to say just a few words on this urgent and important subject. The whole question has been so well discussed by the hon. member for South Perth (Mr. Steele) that there is little left to be said except perhaps from the Ontario viewpoint. The facts are plain, I think, to every hon. member who comes from that province. The question of fuel supply has become one of the most important and one of the gravest of all the problems that confront our people to-day. The situation is this. The wood supply in Ontario, particularly in the older sections of the province, has almost entirely disappeared. Electrical energy has not been developed to such an extent that it may take the place of wood, and as a consequence we are more dependent every day upon the supply of coal we get, not only for our industries, but for our homes as well. The difficulty of obtaining a supply of coal for these purposes is not only increasing, but increasing rapidly. To a large extent, it is true that our industries are in greater need of a steady supply of coal than are private citizens, but, on the other hand, there is an increasing demand for coal for domestic purposes for the reason I have already mentioned, namely, the depletion of our wood supply. Coal is being used to-day not only in our urban centres, but by the farmers as well. The farmers throughout the western part of Ontario are using coal to a large extent, and therefore a proper supply has become essential for three purposes: first, for use in the homes; secondly, for the purposes of industry; and thirdly, for lighting a great many cities and towns throughout the country. We are in an unfortunate position as a province in not having within our borders any natural resources such as are found in the East and in the West. That is our difficulty.
This is not the first time that this matter has been brought up in this House. Last session, the hon. member for Maisoneuve (Mr. Lemieux) brought it up some time in the month of June, and in reply to birn at that time the Prime Minister of the day
(Sir Robert Borden) remarked that the question was a most important one which we must look pretty squarely in the face. He declared that the then Government or future governments would have to look this matter squarely in the face. I do not know what the right hon. gentleman meant by that statement, but I do feel that the present Government and past governments as well have dallied with this question too long, and the situation has become too urgent and acute for us to leave it in its present state. I think, therefore, that the motion of the hon. member for Perth is most opportune. I am not going to go into details in regard to statistics on the subject. The mover of the resolution has already done that, but the fact remains that we import half as much coal as we produce, and as the late Prime Minister said, the questions seems to be to a large extent one of transportation. Not only from the standpoint of Ontario but from the point of view of the nation as a whole, I would urge the necessity of something being done at the present time in this matter. It is all very well to say that the question of transportation is so large *-and undoubtedly it is-that we are having great trouble in connection therewith at the present time. But as a Parliament trying to serve the needs of the Canadian people, it is incumbent upon us to meet the difficulties that face us, no matter how formidable they may be. It is the duty of this Government, and if the Government fails to shoulder its responsibility in the matter, then it is the duty of Parliament, to find a remedy for this urgent problem.
What is our position? I contend that as a nation-for we claim we are a nation- we are most unfortunately dependent upon others for those things which we should provide for ourselves. We have 71 per cent of the available coal supply in the British Empire, and we have 11 or 12 per cent of the coal production of the world, and yet, in these two great industrial provinces, we are absolutely dependent on our neighbours to the south. The people of Ontario, therefore, and particularly the poorer classes, look not only with misgiving but with positive dread upon the advent of fall and winter. Eight or nine years ago they could buy coal for their homes at a price ranging from $6.00 to $6.50 per ton, but during the last winter we have been paying in Ontario, in the county of Middlesex anyway, as high as $23 and $24 for a ton of anthracite for heating purposes, and as high as $16 per ton for soft coal. Now, this state

of affairs should not be permitted to continue if we want to have a contented and prosperous people in Canada.
If we want peace and happiness, it is desirable that we reduce the cost of living, and this particular problem touches every home in the province of Ontario. But the difficulty lies not only in the question of price, although that is of exceeding importance. When the ordinary labour man has to pay $23 for a ton of coal to warm his little home and give comfort to his family, it is quite a slice out of his wages of, say, $15 or $25 a week, and one or two tons will not heat the ordinary home. As I say, however, the question is not only one of price; there is the prospect of our being absolutely debarred from getting coal at all. Any little difficulty occurring between us and our neighbours to the south would place us in a very hazardous situation. Should their supplies become depleted, as has been pointed out, or should a strike occur across the border, the result might be that these two great provinces would find themselves absolutely without coal for heating or industrial purposes. That is a most undesirable situation, yet it was the situation in which we found ourselves in 1919. I find in the report of the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Sir George Foster), for the year 1920 a statement in regard to the fuel supply of Canada in that year. That statement says:
Almost immediately after a strike occurred in the bituminous coal fields of the United States. To meet this situation, the export of coal from Canada was prohibited except under license. The Fuel Controller, Mr. C. A. Magrath, did not have an organization to handle the situation, so the Canadian Trade Commission undertook the work, at the request of the Government, under the direction of Mr. Magrath.
It was necessary to immediately ascertain what stocks of coal were in the country, the quantity available on wheels on Canadian railroads, and the minimum requirements of central Canada for the remaining months of the coal year.
After investigation of Canada's needs, Mr. Magrath proceeded ,to Washington and succeeded in inducing the United States authorities to allow Canada a supply of one hundred and twenty-five cars per day, provided that the coal was distributed in accordance with priority ratings, established by the United States Fuel Administration.
The arrangements made were quite satisfactory, although Canada never received the 125 cars per day, as promised: such industries, public utilities and institutions as were short of coal receiving sufficient supplies to keep them operating and heated. Fortunately the strike was settled about the middle of December and anxieties in regard to the coal supply for Canada were greatly relieved. *
I think that the very reading of this extract from the report of the right hon.

gentleman is a sufficient argument to justify the motion made by the hon. member for Perth. These things occurred in 1919; they may occur again this year, and the probability is that we should be absolutely without coal for either our industries or our homes. If such were the case, we should have to go hat in hand to the people of the United States and ask them, in their kindness of heart,-and I admit that they are large hearted-to give the Canadian people a sufficient supply of coal to keep them from freezing during the winter months and to ensure that the wheels of our industries would not be stopped.
These are the facts as I see them, and I do not wish to labour the point. Prices are every year going higher. This is a natienal question. It is not a question as to whether this government can supply the people of Canada with coal at a profit. Coal is an absolute necessity for the people of the provinces of Ontario and Quebec. They must have coal, and the Government must get it for them even if the getting of it by the Federal authority involves some expenditure. We do not usually, as a Government, undertake enterprises in oreder to make money out of them. We do not operate our educational systems in order to make money; we do not supply seed grain to the farmers of the West on a money making basis; we do not make grants to agricultural fairs in order to make money for the people of Canada, or rather to put money directly into the treasury; we are operating a system of publicly owned railways and we are certainly not making money out of those. If the public needs of the provinces of Ontario and Quebec-our two most important and most prosperous provinces from an industrial point of view-require that the Government should do something of a concrete nature, the Government should take the matter in hand in some practical way. An adequate supply of coal is an absolute necessity for the preservation and efficient conduct of our industries, and the maintenance of domestic and social life in the province of Ontario-almost to as great an extent indeed as the British navy is necessary to the existence of the British nation. And yet when this vital matter is brought up somebody wants to know whether it is not going to cost money. In my opinion the hon. member for South Perth (Mr. Steele) has presented facts which are absolutely beyond question; and even if it does involve an expenditure of public money some method should be pro-

vided whereby coal can be brought from our eastern and western mines to supply the needs of the Canadian people. What does the present situation mean in other ways? We are now paying out some ninety or one hundred million dollars to the Americans for coal. We talk about the adverse balance of trade, and the adverse exchange rate. Well, the Minister of Finance declares that we will be able to meet the indebtedness involved by our present national debt if we will only adopt throughout the country the slogan "Buy in Canada." Very good, here is an opportunity to carry out this slogan. Let us buy Canadian coal for our necessities and avoid the sending out of ninety or one hundred millions of dollars to the American people. Let us spend that money in the purchase of Canadian coal and thus help our own miners and labourers. I am not trying to advance any definite method of settling this problem because I do not know enough about the details of the situation. What I do contend is that we have to make a start somewhere, and I think the - suggestion advanced by the hon. member (Mr. Steele) is a good one. Let a special committee be appointed to deal with this matter; let scientific men be brought before that committee and examined-technical men from the Department of Mines, miners, coal operators, railroad men;-and let us in consultation with them endeavour to reach some solution of this troublesome problem. I have very great pleasure in supporting the motion.


Mr. FRANCIS HENRY KEEFER (Port Arthur and Kenora) :: I want to join in the compliments which have been extended to the hon. member for South Perth for the labour he has expended in getting the data which he presented to-day and the very able manner in which he supported the motion. I do so with great sincerity knowing what work is involved in the preparation of such data. I think that the request made for a committee is one that should be supported by every member. I would like to join in the statement of the member for Calgary (Mr. Redman) that there is not enough use at present made of hon. members in connection with committee work. Very important subjects come before us that might very well be handled in committee by members of this House. We have seen the benefit of that in connection with the Soldiers' Pension Committee. The members of the House include men who are very able in their different professions or
business callings; and, in my judgment, questions such as these could be better handled by these men getting together and considering them in committee, because of the time they could then devote to the work, than they could be handled by the Government, who from pressure of public affairs have not the time. After giving careful consideration to the subjects brought before them they could make their recommendations to the Government which could act upon them or not as it saw fit; but surely beyond all question some valuable opinions and suggestions might be obtained by adopting such a procedure. I sincerely hope the hon. member will be successful in obtaining a committee to consider the subject dealt with in his resolution.
The hon. member mentioned several possible solutions of the coal problem. To my mind there is only one solution of that problem for Ontario and Quebec and that is to burn Nova Scotia coal. There is no use in talking about bringing western coal to Ontario and Quebec-the source is too far away; the mines are situated eight hundred miles from Winnipeg and from that city it is four hundred miles to the head of the lakes, involving a journey of twelve hundred miles by rail to the lakeside ports. Before the war the freight rate on coal at cost was half a cent per ton per mile. That figure would easily be doubled now, so that the carriage of western coal for a distance of twelve hundred miles to Lake Superior would involve a charge of $12 per ton to start with. With such a handicap as that the carriage of western coal to the East is out of the question. But if we take Nova Scotia coal the situation is entirely different. From the mines of Nova Scotia to tide-water there is practically no rail haul, or a very trifling one. From a conversation I had with the member for Cape Breton North and Victoria (Mr. MacKenzie) I ascertained that a few years ago the Nova Scotia coal mines were only producing a small quantity-a little over half a million tons; but last year they mined ten times that former output. It is a strange fact that these mines should be shut down to-day. Why is that? One cannot understand it. Are there no orders, or is there some profiteering going on? What is the reason for the cessation of operations? Let us get at the facts. We know that there is a demand for this coal, and we know the demand is not decreasing in Canada; we
revised Edition.

know that there is plenty of coal in Nova Scotia; let us ascertain why it is not available.
Take, for example, the city of Ottawa. The freight on bituminous coal amounts to $4.85 from the mines.


Mr. FIELDING:: What mines?


Francis Henry Keefer: From the mines in Pennsylvania. The nearest mines you can get soft coal from are located from one hundred to one hundred and fifty miles from Buffalo. In some cases, however, the coal comes from as far south as Maryland. After the coal has been brought to the St. Lawrence river it comes in over the Grand Trunk or the Canadian Pacific to Ottawa. By the time it reaches this city the rate amounts to $4.63. On top of that you have to pay the exchange on that American freight, and on the American price of the coal, and there is also a duty of fifty-three cents. So there you have five to six dollars which in part could be saved by using Nova Scotia coal. Now, we had Nova Scotia coal coming up to Montreal for ninety cents a ton and less before the war. While that great struggle was on the boats were all commandeered and the business temporarily dislocated. Prior to the war Nova Scotia coal was much in demand in Boston; I am told that city gets a large proportion of its coal from the Nova Scotia mines. Why cannot that coal come into our lake ports, why cannot it pass Montreal? The freight rate by water is very different from what it is by rail, let me give you an illustration. For years we have been taking coal from the lake Erie ports, carrying it to the head of the lakes for use by the Canadian Pacific or the Canadian Northern railway, at as low a rate as twenty-fice cents a ton, a distance of nine hundred miles. This low rate is feasible because of the return cargoes of wheat- thirty or forty cents was the normal rate on coal, but during the war it rose as high as a dollar. Now, however, freight rates are coming down. If you go up to the lakeside towns you will see immense stock piles of coal annually made by the three railways.


Mr. EULER:: Will the hon. gentleman permit me a question? Can he say what proportion of the coal consumed in Montreal comes from the Maritime Provinces? Does it amount to any large per centage?


Francis Henry Keefer: I have not the figures for Quebec, but so far as our water-borne

coal in Ontario is concerned, I can give you some information.


William Daum Euler: That would be waterborne also, would it not?


Francis Henry Keefer: It would be for Montreal. The water-borne coal brought to Ontario amounts to 4,614,000 tons bituminous-


William Daum Euler: Coming from where?


Francis Henry Keefer: I take it that that would practically all come from United States ports. Of that about 1,000,000 tons goes up to the head of the lakes, for the Grand Trunk Pacific, the Canadian Pacific and the Canadian Northern railways. Then, 425,000 tons of anthracite is taken to the head of the lakes. The hon. member for South Perth has already giveri the total amount of coal coming in by rail and water; I need not repeat them. But the point I want to make is this: You can bring that coal from Nova Scotia up to Montreal for from fifty to ninety cents a ton. You can take coal from the Erie ports to the head of the lakes for forty cents a ton. Now, you have four or five dollars to play on. How is it that- we cannot get that Nova Scotia coal anywhere in Ontario for at least a maximum freight of somewhere about a couple of dollars? One of the difficulties, of course, to-day is that these coal boats have to break bulk. That coal has to be elevated at Montreal and then reloaded in the smaller ships. I think that nearly every member of this House knows my views on this question of transportation. The solution is to allow those coal boats to come up through the St. Lawrence route as deepened and enlarged. When they can sail up to any port on lake Ontario and deliver their coal and thus be not far from any towns in the interior of Ontario, then you will get cheaper coal; but I doubt if you will get it until then.
When we have as a competitor a freight rate by rail for 150 miles that costs us practically three or four dollars a ton as well as the duty, there must be a solution of the problem of bringing this Nova Scotia coal to Ontario points, but it cannot, as suggested, be by rail. The distance is too great and you cannot get away from the per ton cost per mile on a railway.
This country has yet to awaken to what it is losing every year by not improving its water-borne transportation through the St. Lawrence. Our people do not yet realize what this means. The best minds in the United States have realized it, and

they have made the statement-which I am perfectly certain is true-that it would pay these two countries to build that canal and scrap it every year, throw away the capital cost because that is what we are expending as wasted for lack of that water-borne traffic in relation to various commodities. Of course, we are only touching coal to-day.
Now, we should quickly prepare to get some coal in. Our Canadian mercantile marine ships are built as bulk carriers, and some of them adapted to the size of the St. Lawrence canals, and to-day they may be looking for cargoes. It would be well to have this question considered in that way. There are other existing types of boats that could carry coal up through those existing canals to the Great Lakes. When you once are able to send coal right through you would have return cargoes of grain and other products of the West, and a low freight established. Few of us have any conception of the number of ships that are occupied all the year round bringing coal up to the head of the lakes from lake Erie ports even under present conditions.


Michael Steele: Might I ask my hon. friend a question? What cargo of coal can be carried through the present St. Lawrence locks?


Francis Henry Keefer: Their present limit is 14 feet 6 inches draft. The Welland canal is- being built to a draft of 25 feet, with 30 feet on the sills.


Michael Steele: What would be the cargo capacity of those ships?


Francis Henry Keefer: With the locks eight hundred feet long a coal cargo boat of about 9,000 tons could be taken through. The present length of boat that is much used on the upper lakes is 500 feet with a draft of 21 to 22 feet.


Michael Steele: I was interested in the boats that could go through the present St. Lawrence locks.


Francis Henry Keefer: There is no reason why coal should not even at present be brought up through the St. Lawrence locks, but as a lesser cargo would have to be carried at almost the same overhead cost the freight per ton will be greater. But even in that manner coal should be brought up at half the cost we are paying for the railway haulage from Pennsylvania. The canal boat that comes through the St. Lawrence is about 300 feet long. I do not know what she will carry in coal, but you
80S
can get the relation in grain. Her grain capacity is about 100,000 bushels. On the other hand, these big 500-foot lake boats will carry from 400,000 to 500,000 bushels of grain or about 8,000 tons of coal. Therefore the smaller boats ought to carry from 1,500 to 2,000 tons of coal, if I am right in my figures.


Mr. HOCKEN:: Would it not be possible for each of these boats to tow two or three barges?


Francis Henry Keefer: There is no reason in
the world Why the same scheme cannot be adopted as used to prevail in the old Welland canal, when we used to see barges towing two or three schooners behind them. But we are asleep on this question. We are being robbed every day, and it is time the people were awakened, and the only way you can really awaken them is through this House. One of the quickest ways is by means of a committee, just as we had a committee on the question of prices, and so give the matter publicity. There may be some system at work between the coal operators and dealers or others that has held up the price of coal. Why is it today that the Sydney mines are shut down for lack of business? And yet the data produced by the hon. member for South Perth show us that we should be very busy now providing for our fuel supply. I am therefore glad to urge that this matter receive the very careful consideration of the Government and that a committee be appointed to work upon it.
The electrification of the railways need not be taken up just now, but when it is a fact, as we have been told in this House, that out of every dollar of expenditure in operation of our railways twenty cents goes for fuel, and we have any quantity of white coal right alongside these railways running to waste, there is something wrong. We have three railroads practically alongside the St. Lawrence which could be supplied with white coal from that source, and have that quantity of coal that is now regularly and daily going up in smoke, saved for Canadian consumers elsewhere. That in itself would be a saving. That is a question which this committee could thresh out, and I would like to urge that such a committee be appointed immediately.


Mr. D. D. McKENZIE (North Cape Breton and Victoria) :: Mr. Speaker, I
wish to join other hon. members in paying my tribute of gratitude to the hon. member for South Perth (Mr. Steele) for the great care and extensive research which he must

have bestowed upon the very valuable information which he has so clearly placed before the House on this very important subject. Such information is educative at all times, particularly in connection with so important a subject, and we should thank the hon. member for the service he has rendered the country generally and the House of Commons in particular.
Now, it has been abundantly shown that fuel is one of the prim? necessities of our country, and I suppose it may be classed in the same category as food and clothing. When we talk of ourselves as a nation, as an independent entity among the nations of the world, it is desirable that we should be able to live largely within ourselves. I do not mean by that, Sir, that we should not have the fullest possible intercourse with the outside world, but I do mean that we should develop the essentials of life and the essentials of nationhood within our own borders. The people of the British Empire generally know that the basic industries of England and Scotland are coal and steel. These industries have been developed to the fullest possible extent, and the benefits and advantages common to such development have followed. A careful examination of the system of trade in Great Britain will show that Englishmen and Scotchmen are not fond of exporting raw material; they prefer to export the article in a fully manufactured state, and in that way the most is made of every product of the country, in all its stages of production and manufacture. We have coal in abundance in Canada; we have other products such as lumber, iron and steel, and it is of the highest importance that we should follow the example of our brethren in the old land and manufacture and use these products to the best advantage of the Canadian people.
I have spoken about national assets; and this phase of the question has been referred to by the mover of the motion. As a matter of safety first, if you like to put it on that ground, it is important that Canadians should be able to live by what they do in Canada for themselves. Accordingly, it is important that every Canadian citizen should be able to get fuel within Canada and of Canadian production as far as possible. An extraordinary condition exists to-day. The people of Ontario, particularly the western portion of the province, are in dread of cold weather, in dread of winter, because they have not the necessary supply of fuel-and the same condition exists in parts of Quebec. We have in Nova Scotia, 
as I read in the press and as I am told privately, ten thousand artisans out of employment, walking the streets, and alongside of those men are twenty-five or thirty coal mines capable of producing splendid fuel. It seems extraordinary that there should be such a demand for this article, such an abundance of it lying at hand, such a number of men out of employment who would be only too happy to work, and that nothing is done in order to have this coal taken out of the ground, at the same time giving these men employment and satisfying the demands of the people of western Ontario and other parts of the country for the necessary amount of fuel. The only thing necessary, it seems to me, is to find a practicable scheme under which this could be done. The hon. member for Port Arthur (Mr. Keefer) pointed out a moment ago that it is not a very difficult thing to get coal to Quebec and Montreal, though it may be difficult to store it and ulti-
5 p.m. mately ship it further west by rail. That would mean, of course, a second handling of the coal, but it seems to me that coal shipped from the Maritime Provinces could be taken to Quebec and Montreal, whence it might be transported over the Government railway, a road designed for the purpose of carrying heavy trains at a small freight rate. If this were done, some if not all the demand of western Ontario for fuel would be met, to say nothing of enabling us to depend largely upon ourselves instead of upon a foreign country for our coal supply.
Now, there is the business end of the matter to be considered. One of the problems of the West is the matter of enabling their grain to find its way to the markets of the world. First, it must get to the Atlantic. During nine months of the year, I think, navigation on the St. Lawrence is open. It is quite feasible that coal should be brought from Nova Scotia to Quebec or Montreal by vessels which could take on wheat for eastern ports as a return cargo. In this way a substantial reduction of the rate even that prevailed before the war in respect to the shipment of coal might be effected. I think, therefore, that if we as a people could go about this matter in earnest, we might be surprised by the beneficial results obtained.
Human nature, as a rule, is somewhat disposed to shrink from new duties and new undertakings; we are inclined to go along in the same old direction and let the other man do the new thing. But it seems to me that this is an opportunity for the Govern-

ment, if we can induce them to do anything at all, to make a start along this line and put something on the right side of the ledger, even if it is a death bed repentance. I would be glad to see them show that they have some sense of national responsibility and move forward in the direction of opening up these channels which are so essential to the proper development and unity of this country. It is a matter of great satisfaction that in Nova Scotia we have practically unlimited supplies of coal. Many years ago, we thought that we had discovered all the coal that was to be discovered; we have a history of coal fields in Nova Scotia, written many years ago by an English gentleman by the name of Brown. Brown's history is still an authority on the question of the mineral wealth, and particularly the coal wealth of Nova Scotia, and if you were to talk about finding coal outside of the sources mentioned in Mr. Brown's record and history, men would shake their heads and say: "There is no use talking; Mr. Brown knew what he did and what he wrote, and you will not find coal except the seams of coal which Mr. Brown discovered." It is, however, a happy development to find that within the last three months there have been struck, within the territory of the Dominion Coal Company, two magnificent coal seams which Mr. Brown knew nothing about. Therefore, coal is being discovered from day to day, and there seems to be no limit at all to the enormous quantities of coal of very excellent quality which we have in Nova Scotia, that is to say, within the Dominion of Canada. When we are talking about national questions, we name provinces simply as a means of designating where the national fortune is; and it is only proper for me, as a Nova Scotian and as an old coal miner, because I worked in the coal mines of Nova Scotia, and I know what it is to mine coal, to cut it and to bring it to the surface, to speak of the coal wealth of Nova Scotia. It does me good, therefore, to talk of this subject if it is to be of any benefit to my brethren of the coal craft in my native province. I hope the day is not far distant when our men will have plenty to do in mining coal, and when a constant, continuous market will be found for it within our own bounds aud outside of the bounds of Canada, so far as that may be necessary. Last year, we produced only 6,500,000 tons of coal in Nova Scotia, and that was done entirely by single-shifting, that is, by men working only one shift a day. There is no trouble in the world,
when pressure is on, to double the shift, and with the openings that we now have in the coal seams, there would be no trouble in converting a production of 6,500,000 tons into twelve or fourteen million tons, if the necessary pressure were put on the production, and if the owners of the coal knew where it was to be sold. In that way, the cost of production would be very materially reduced. Any business man knows that overhead expenses in connection with 6,000,000 tons of coal are pretty much the same as overhead expenses in connection with double that quantity. As the market becomes certain and the quantity to be produced is sure and fixed, so from day to day would the expense of production be lessened and the price of coal accordingly cheapened.
I have much pleasure in again thanking the hon. member for South Perth (Mr. Steele) for the service which he has rendered to his country in bringing this matter so forcibly before the House. I trust those of us who will have some responsibility in carrying forward the idea which he proposes, wil not avoid or try to swerve from the duty and responsibility which we have in connection with this matter, and the Government of the day, which is responsible for the general policy of the country so far as government is concerned, should do what lies in its power in order to further the project outlined by my hon. friend.


Horatio Clarence Hocken: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Cape Breton North and Victoria (Mr. McKenzie) says that it is a characteristic of humanity to shrink from things that are difficult. We all know that. I have found, in legislative bodies, rather a larger number of men who shrink from taking up difficult questions. There is a disposition to go along in the ordinary groove; but when one is urged to get out of a groove and undertake something that has not been done before, there is great difficulty in getting a sufficient number to carry that out. I have discovered that in places other than the House of Commons.


Mr. JACOBS:: What places?


Horatio Clarence Hocken: In the city council of Montreal, for example. For that reason, I have great admiration for a man like the hon. member for South Perth (Mr. Steele), who brings before this House something that is rather difficult of solution. The very difficulties make it worth while, and the obstacles in the way are, as the late

Sir James Whitney used to say, "for us to overcome." We all know there are obstacles in the way of providing an ample coal supply for the whole Dominion of Canada; but it is our duty, as men elected to look after the welfare of the people of this country, to find a solution for those difficulties and a means of providing those things that are necessary for a comfortable existence upon the part of our people.
The subject has been covered so fully by the mover and the succeeding speakers that I cannot do very much more than repeat what has been said. But when Canada has, within its borders, more than enough coal to meet all the needs of her people, and then we import $98,000,000 worth from the United States, there is something wrong with our business capacity. Although this coal is at the extremes of the country, the general advantage to Canada of having our people supplied with coal from our own mines is so great that one would think steps would have been taken long ago, at least to ascertain whether a solution of this question is possible. If we can succeed in keeping in this country $98,000,000 that we now send annually to the United States, we shall be contributing to that extent to the prosperity of the people of Canada, and to my mind, that is a very important consideration. A committee, such as is suggested by the hon. member for South Perth, seems to be the only means of solving this problem in an intelligent manner. That committee would have the power to make all investigations and examinations necessary to reach a decision; all the force of Parliament would be behind its findings, and if it is possible for any body in this country to secure the necessary information, it ought to be possible for such a committee as that which is proposed. Therefore, I think the hon. member for Perth South is proceeding along exactly the right lines.
The hon. member for Port Arthur and Kenora (Mr. Keefer) drew attention to the possibilities of providing, at least Ontario and Quebec, with coal from Nova Scotia. I remember the time when, as he said, you would see on the lakes a large steam barge towing two or three barges after it, really making the cargo which that steamer was drawing three or four times as great as if it went alone. I am at a loss to understand why that system could not be repeated in bringing coal from Nova Scotia to Ontario ports. If that should be done, I am quite satisfied that practically

all the grain grown in Ontario that goes out for export could be taken out in the same way. That would reduce the cost both of carrying the grain for the farmer to the markets of the world and of bringing coal to the people of Ontario. That is a system of navigation that prevailed until they got the big whalebacks and those boats of 9,000 and 10,000 tons. Even with the canals we have at the present time on the St. Lawrence river, that plan should give very excellent results.
As to the coal of the West, I think that at least all the western country should be served by Alberta coal. If that were done it would enable many coal mines in Alberta to continue operations throughout the year, instead of shutting down, as they do now, for a considerable period. It would reduce the overhead expenses and mean cheaper coal to all the people of the prairies. I am not proposing any method to stop the importation of coal to the head of the lakes. That might not be a good thing for the railways, but certainly it should be possible, by specially constructed locomotives and cars if necessary, to supply as far east as Winnipeg at least, with Alberta coal. That is done to a considerable degree at the present time, but I think the distribution throughout the western provinces should be more complete.
I noticed by a document which came to my desk to-day, showing the mineral production of Canada, that the amount of peat produced in this country last year was 3,000 tons, at a valuation of $15,000. It seems to me the development of the peat beds of this province might be carried on more effectually and efficiently than has been the case so far. With coal at $6, or $7, or $8 a ton, perhaps it would be impossible for peat to compete, but with coal at $15 a ton peat at $5 a ton ought to be an efficient form of fuel for a considerable distance from the neighbourhood where it is obtained. In central and' eastern Ontario there are large beds of peat, and I think a very large number of the cities and towns, and a considerable portion of our population, might be served with that fuel, which, while not equal to anthracite coal can be, obtained at a lower price and be put on the market in competition with anthracite.
My hon. friend from West Middlesex (Mr. Ross) has said something with which I entirely agree-that it is going to be a question whether we can get fuel at any price. That has been pretty nearly the case in this country for the past few

years, and that situation will be intensified. I therefore think that all the fuel resources that the country possesses should be examined, to see whether it is not possible for Canada to supply its own fuel both for industrial and domestic purposes, and certainly the question of peat should be considered.
As to the conservation of coal, which to my mind is a very important phase of this question, my hon. friend from South Perth (Mr. Steele) has referred to the possibility of erecting- . central heating plants. I have thought for a number of years that that is something that ought to be done, and any pressure that the Government could put upon municipalities in order to have that done should be exerted. In my own city at one time a company was formed to do heating from a central plant. Their proposition was to heat all the houses in one or two or three blocks from one plant. To my mind, that it a very fine idea. They could use butiminous coal for such a purpose: that is always cheaper than anthracite coal, and only about half the quantity would be required. All the ash and dirt connected with heating would be eliminated by such a scheme. Unfortunately, the members of the city council regarded that as a very valuable franchise, and they refused to permit the company to go on with the work. The municipality itself refused to do it as a publicly-owned enterprise, and they refused to let the company do it that was willing to invest its own money. To my mind, that is one of the solutions of our fuel problem. In cities like Toronto, Montreal, Quebec, Hamilton and London that plan would mean a saving of millions of dollars and not only that, but the heating of houses and large buildings under very much better conditions than obtain where individual furnaces are used. I do not know what any committee could do to persuade municipalities to go into that, but perhaps the publicity that would be given to the plan from the work of such a committee as is proposed would have an informative influence upon the members of the various municipal councils, and bring about that method of heating.
I want to say just a word or two in support of what my hon. friend from Port Arthur (Mr. Keefer) has said about the development of electrical power on the St. Lawrence river. There is a tremendously valuable power there awaiting development. It is a work that I think the Governments of the United States and Canada might undertake with great advantage in the interest of transportation and the saving of fuel, especially in this country, but also in the United States. If we had had to supply all the manufacturers of Ontario with coal to produce their power during the war, it would not have been possible for us to have secured anything like the results we got from the factories operating during that period. Let us get another million horse power from the St. Lawrence, and if there is a demand for it for industry, let it go there; if there is not a -demand for it for industry, let us run the Grand Trunk railway from Toronto to Montreal with the power so developed. While the initial cost might be very great, the ultimate cost spread over a period of 30 or 40 years would certainly mean a great saving as compared with fuel, because with fuel it is not only its first cost that has to be taken into account, but the transporting of it from point to point, which forms a very large item in the expenses of a railway.
I want to congratulate my hon. friend from South Perth upon bringing this matter up. I hope the Government will see its way to granting him a committee, and I hope that that committee will stay at work session after session until it finds a solution for this very serious domestic and industrial problem with which our country is confronted.
Mr. WILLIAM D. EULER (North Waterloo):	Mr. Speaker, I think it is
m-ost appropriate that the hon. member for South Perth (Mr. Steele), coming as he does from the province of Ontario, should have introduced this resolution. I may say at the outset that I am heartily in favour of it, because as is generally known, we in the province of Ontario and perhaps, in a lesser degree, the people of the province of Quebec, are very seriously handicapped by reason of the fact that we have no deposits of coal in these two provinces. Yet, Sir, I have been somewhat surprised that the discussion has related practically to only one item of fuel, and that is coal, except that my hon. friend from Toronto (Mr. Hocken) discussed briefly the development of peat beds in the province of Ontario. I read an article a few days ago in one of the Toronto journals, which I am sorry I did not keep,, because it was written in a very convincing manner. It was to the effect that we shall have in Canada, and

in Ontario particularly, other sources of fuel which will be available long before the supply of coal is exhausted. The writer referred to fuel oils which could be developed in this country, not merely from oil wells, but from the oil sands so plentiful in the West. He referred also-and this is perhaps the visionary part of it-to the undoubted possibility of manufacturing fuels by synthetic processes. That may look rather far-fetched to hon. members, and, as I say, it may appear to be somewhat visionary, but I believe there is a good deal to be said for the suggestion. Twenty-five or thirty years ago, if any man had said that the greater part of western Ontario would be supplied with power and light by current generated at Niagara Falls, he would have been considered a dreamer. Yet to-day that dream is true. That, however, is merely by the way.
I desire to refer briefly to one or two statements made by speakers who preceded me, and to make one point in particular, if I can. Most of the members have referred to the fact that the question of a fuel supply for Ontario particularly has to do with transportation. It is admitted, I think, that the western provinces and the extreme eastern provinces, are well supplied with fuel, and there is no serious difficulty so far as they are concerned. It is also admitted that they have enough fuel to supply Ontario and Quebec provided it can be distributed to those provinces at reasonable prices. The matter of transportation is undoubtedly one of the primary difficulties we have to contend with, but it is not the only difficulty in the supplying of fuel from the eastern and western provinces to central Canada. In the United States, from which we in Ontario get all the fuel that we use, both soft and hard coal, the people have at times been in just as serious difficulty as the people of Ontario, and have paid almost as high prices for their coal. They have found it sometimes almost impossible to obtain coal, just as we have found in the western part of Ontario. What is the reason? They have sufficient fuel in the mines of Pennsylvania, and yet the people of certain portions of the United States have suffered almost as severely as we in Ontario who have no coal at all. I remember reading, about a year ago or perhaps a little longer, that the United States Government itself had to pay $22 per ton for soft coal at the seaboard, delivered to United States war vessels, although it was clearly proven that that coal did not cost

the producer more than perhaps $10 or $12 per ton, at the point of delivery. Yet the United States Government, for the maintenance of its warships, was obliged to pay a profit of some $10 or $12 a ton to the producers of the coal. That is the situation I wanted to point out. Private interests have a monopoly of this national necessity and use their power to extract unfair profits.
Even if we can provide for transportation from the Maritime Provinces, and can get coal from that part of the country into Ontario, I think it would be absolutely necessary for the Government of Canada to ensure that the coal deposits themselves should come under Government control. Otherwise, we should have a situation similar to that in the United States. I am free to admit that the United States people may possibly, at all times, be able to obtain coal, while on the other hand, we may at some time not be able to get any from that country, because, while they have treated us generously in the past, nevertheless, self-preservation is the first law of nature, and conditions may easily arise under which the United States might find it necessary to cut off the supply from Ontario. Practically the only reason why I rose was to make this statement, that coincident with the settlement of the problem of transportation must be the settlement of the control of our coal fields, whether in Eastern or in Western Canada. And while it may be a radical thing to say in this House, yet I for one believe that in regard to any of the great natural resources and public utilities of Canada, including such matters as transportation, where the people are dependent for their comfort and prosperity upon them, the Government has a real duty to discharge in seeing to it that these things remain under the control, if not the ownership and operation, of the people themselves.


William Findlay Maclean: I shall not take more than a few minutes. I agree with the previous speaker (Mr. Euler), that these public utilities ought to be controlled by the state. Who own the coal-beds in the United States? The railways themselves, which are private corporations. We are getting railroads in this country which will be a national asset, and we must take hold of our fuel problem. If the people of the United States are paying such enormous prices to-day for coal, it is because the railway monopolies made a monopoly of the coal mines;

and, as the previous speaker stated, we must avoid that. One thing I want to point out is the fact that transportation must he a matter of the electrification of our railways, and we can start with the development of the St. Lawrence powers. We can obtain power enough there, and also in Ontario, to carry cars up to the head of the lakes, and the coal supplies of the Maritime Provinces can be used to electrify the railways there by burning the coal at the pit mouth. They are coming to that in England, where they see great improvements in that direction. It is also possible, by the use of our river-powers, to get almost sufficient power to drive all the railways from one coast to the other. We should have more cars for transportation of coal. I think it is a good policy in connection with this question of coal to ascertain at the same time how much power we can get by the use of the water-power in our rivers, and also by the generation of power at the pit mouth in the mines. In that way we could get enough power to carry coal across the continent, and so avoid burning up 70 per cent of the coal we bring into the country in driving engines on the railways. The problem is a very wide one. It goes into the question of the use of electricity developed both from coal at the pit mouth and from power generated by the rivers, and it involves also the necessity of developing the greatest possible amount of power we can. Supposing we are dependent on the United States for anthracite coal, and particularly for coal for Ontario and Quebec, if we developed the electrical power which has already been referred to in this House, and obtained the highest possible amount of it, should the Americans be wanting power, we could trade our power for their coal, and in that way the balance of the account might be in our favour. So that all these questions must be taken up in connection with the fuel problem-the question of power, the question of transportation and the utilization of our surplus water-power-if we have a surplus of power, sending some of it to the Americans in return for a friendly supply of coal from them, thus relieving us from the necessity of having to beg it from them. So I commend to the consideration of the Government the proposal before the House. I hope the Government will appoint a committee of the character that has been suggested, that a full study of the whole question will be made, and that one result will be to ensure to the
people of this country a plentiful supply of coal. Speaking of coal, I hope that the news coming from the Mackenzie Basin in the Northwest is correct. I trust a great supply of petroleum will be found there, and that it will help in the solution of the fuel problem of Canada.


Hugh Boulton Morphy: The afternoon is passing, and it is incumbent upon me to say a word or two in support of the motion of the hon. member for South Perth (Mr. Steele), a close colleague of mine territorially. I consider that his motion deals with a situation of great urgency. I have listened to the many speeches, all of the same tenor, which have been made in support of the motion, and the discussion has been very illuminating. The main value of to-day's discussion to the House, and I believe also to the Government and the country, is the publicity which will be given to the subject matter of the resolution. It is unquestioned that in the departments of government are vast stores of knowledge concerning the natural resources of Canada, but unless there is a discussion of this kind these sources of knowledge lie dormant there and are given no publicity. For that reason I think my hon. friend from South Perth deserves the thanks of the House for bringing this question forward in the way he has. The appointment of a committee is asked for, and it does seem to me that the Government should, upon this subject at least-notwithstanding the criticisms heard now and then that there are too many committees-hearken to the views of hon. gentlemen and, in view of the importance of the subject, grant the committee that is asked. It does not seem to me that there has been anything introduced in the House for a long time that goes as closely to the public needs as the subject dealt with in this resolution. I do not wish to reiterate the arguments showing the deplorable condition to which either Quebec or Ontario may fall as the result of arbitrary action on the part of those across the line who have the control of the fuel supply. It is time, however, that some executive action of a concrete nature should be taken by the Government along the lines of the resolution, and that a special committee of the House should be given the chance not only to try and solve this problem by recommendations, but also to let their work operate as an advertisement to the capital of the world, showing the immense possibilities, as to profit and public benefit, of the utilization of that capital in the development of this industry.

There is no question to my mind but that the Government should consider what its attitude should be in so far as the nationalization of the coal interests of the country are concerned. That matter was the subject of comment in the House on a prior occasion and I believe it is one as to which perhaps the Government has an idea other than nationalization. But I take pleasure in agreeing with what the hon. member for North Waterloo (Mr. Euler) has just stated-that this matter is of such grave moment, being a necessity of the greatest public concern, that I do not think members would be going very far out of their way in asking the Government to seriously consider the question of the nationalization of the coal interests of the country. I know that it looks like a great undertaking to attempt; but nevertheless I think that in ten or twenty years from now, it may be said here that the Government was very supine when it did not devote its best energies to the consideration of the question of the nationalization of the coal industry. The more the fuel supply of the public is kept out of the hands of private enterprise, the freer the Government will be to take measures which will prove of real value to the public at large. Apart from that, the work of the committee might reasonably influence private capital to enter the coal fields of the West and produce. The more coal there is produced, and over produced, the cheaper that fuel will be to the people; and it seems to me that if there was no other reason than that, the committee should be permitted to enter upon a study of this problem. As the hon. member (Mr. Steele) said a short time ago, we may be up against worse conditions next winter than we have experienced during the past three or four years. I do not know what the conditions were in Quebec, but I think the hon. member faithfully portrayed the difficulties, the expenses-yes, the extravagant expenses- and the deep privations to which the people of Ontario have been put during the last few years in connection with this indispensable necessity of life. For that reason the Department of Railways should take into consideration the suggestion of my hon. friend (Mr. Steele) that there should be Canadian cars stationed at the American mines to take coal and land it in Canada. There is no question to my mind but that the Government might reasonably take action along that line, and I commend the hon. gentleman for bringing the suggestion to their attention.
'
I would go even further than that if the conditions in future are to be as bad as they have been in the past. This country has given bonuses for the production of steel, it has given subsidies towards the construction of shipping-many bonuses have been given to aid enterprises which are not as nearly of as great concern as the fuel supply of the people. It might be all right, therefore, to suggest to the Government that they make a survey of the whole field of Western Canada, which is a veritable coal mine, and it might be worth while suggesting that this committee be asked to consider whether the bonus principle should not apply to the production of coal. I do not for a moment see why the question of a bonus for the production, or the over production, of coal should not be considered. I say "over-production" because you cannot produce too much of that necessity of life to satisfy the wants of the people and help to cheapen the price. I leave the matter there, in the hope that the Government will regard this motion not as an academic proposition but as a real problem which confronts this country and awaits solution. I hope the Government will consent to the appointment of a committee and let them get to work, thereby giving publicity to the extent and character of our natural resources. I trust further that our efforts in connection with this matter will lead to the development, either by private effort or by the Government itself, of our coal supply which is, if anything, as great a necessity as our supply of food.


Mr. W. D. COWAN (Regina) :: Mr. Speaker, the motion of the hon. member for South Perth (Mr. Steele) is very opportune, I think, particularly so in view of the action taken only last week by the Legislature of Alberta. That province, as has been said to-day, is vitally interested in the development of her coal mines, she having such enormous deposits of coal. During the past two or three years she has been devoting her energies very largely to developing those mines, the result being that she has largely captured the Manitoba market which was formerly supplied from the American coal fields. The Hon. Mr. Cote, provincial secretary, speaking only last week in the Alberta Legislature said:
We have increased our total output to 7,000,000 tons, and we have largely captured the Manitoba market, but we cannot hold that market without a struggle, and I am informed that arrangements have been made by American interests for a strong attack in order that they may regain the ground they lost last year.

He added:
It is not the intention of my department to submit quietly.
I am very glad to note that the Alberta Government is not going to submit quietly, because I have always felt that once Canadians have demonstrated that they can supply the market of Manitoba, they should be encouraged in every shape and form to continue that work in order that we may lessen the importation of foreign goods, and thereby balance the difference in trade which is so much against us at the present time.
Hon. Mr. Cote also stated:
I am firmly convinced that we have hit upon the right plan to develop Alberta's coal industry and, incidentally, all of the other, industries of this province that are allied with the coal industry.
That to me is a very important statement, because if there is anything I want to see in Western Canada it is a greater development of our industrial life. As soon as we have that development the agitation which has continued so long, and which has so often threatened to separate Eastern and Western Canada, will very largely cease. Therefore, it is up to us to do what we can to assist Alberta in her work.
Why is it, I said that it is particularly opportune that we should at this time appoint such a committee? Speaking on the same occasion the provincial secretary ' said:
The coal industry of Alberta is capable of great development, and during the coming yeai it is the intention to have the staff of the Industrial Research Commission, for which $38,000 was voted, devote its entire energies to studying the coal problem of the province in every feature from mining to marketing.
What more opportune time for this Government to do something to co-operate to see if we can solve what is probably the biggest problem we have in Canada to-day? Co-operation between this Government and the various provincial governments has been carried on to a rather large extent in the last two or three years with very great success, and I see no reason why we should not continue along those lines.
As an illustration of the result of that co-operation, let me draw your attention Sir, to what this Parliament did on the initiative, if I remember correctly, of the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Sir George Foster). Some two or three years ago we voted $200,000 for the establishment of a briquetting plant in southern Saskatchewan. It was agreed that we should
co-operate with the provincial governments interested, and the Saskatchewan and Manitoba governments voted $100,000 each, which I think they have since increased, and the total amount now expended is about $600,000. The question was: Can we solve the coal problem of southern Saskatchewan and of Manitoba from the lignite coal of that area? What has the result been? I am going to read-and I make no apologies for doing so-an item which appeared in the Regina Leader only a few days ago, in which it is stated:
The first briquettes produced by the Government briquetting plant at Taylorton, to be tried out in this city, were to be seen burning yesterday in the grate in the Premier's office at the Parliament Buildings. They were part of a sackful from the first output of the plant sent to Premier Martin last week.
. The briquettes are about two inches square and shaped like a piece of children's machine-cut candy. They are very heavy and burn evenly, giving off a powerful heat. The residue is a fine brown ash.
Those who viewed the fire in the Premier's grate estimated that the heat-producing qualities of the briquettes were considerably greater than those of ordinary soft coal burned on the prairies.
The plant expects to place these briquettes on the market this summer.
To me that is exceedingly important. There are two features to be noted. First, is it possible to take this coal and briquette it scientifically and successfully? It is demonstrated that it can be done. Then the next consideration is-will it be a commercial success? I am fully satisfied that within the next month or two that will be fully demonstrated. The fact that by the initiative of this Government and of this Parliament the task of solving this problem in southern Saskatchewan was undertaken, and it is now an assured success. If we can solve one problem in that way why shold not we undertake the bigger problem for the whole Dominion? This particular news item in the Regina Leader would lead the public to believe that the Provincial Government was solely entitled to credit for this particular work, but I am satisfied that that was not the desire of the Premier of Saskatchewan. He has already enough to his credit and does not need to steal credit from anybody else. I wish to express as strongly as I can my appreciation of the course taken by this Government in starting that work and carrying it to such a successful conclusion.
There is no reason why we should not supply the whole Dominion from our own coal deposits. The hon. member for Port Arthur and Kenora (Mr. Keefer) to-day

said that it was quite impossible for us to bring coal from Alberta down to the province of Ontario. " Why," he says, " you have 1,200 miles of a freight haul." For the first time since I have been in this House I have to disagree with my hon. friend-and I think ninety-nine times of a hundred he is right. But what have we been doing? In the city of Regina a great many of us have for years been burning coal brought from Pennsylvania. That means a railway haul of three to five miles to the lake port, then the water haul to the head of the lakes, and again another thousand mile railway haul to Regina. That is, the Americans can sell their coal to us, notwithstanding a rail haul of over 1,200 miles. When it comes down to our doing the same in regard to Ontario it is suggested that we are quite incapable of handling such a proposition. To me a Canadian is just as good as any other man We can do just as well as anybody else, and I am satisfied that if we attack the problem in a true Canadian spirit we can solve it.
Coal from Alberta does carry an enormous freight rate shipped eastward so also does Nova Scotia coal shipped westward. But let me point out that the more freight traffic you have undoubtedly the lower the cost of carrying that freight will be. Carrying only a limited quantity of coal- over our lines as we are doing to-day, naturally the cost is very high indeed, and the very fact that we are carrying such a limited quantity is responsible for our enormous railway deficits. In the United States wherever they have coal-carrying lines those are found to be the most profitable. In fact, it is always profitable to carry coal. We are not doing it. Consequently we are not getting that freight, we are not getting the return that we should get on the freight, and we have operating deficits.
It seems to me that the only thing to do is to make up our minds that we are going to increase the amount of coal traffic on our railways, as a result of the decreased cost of operation due to the greatly increased volume of traffic, the Railway Commission, it seems to me, would he justified in ordering a reduction of the freight rate. Therefore it seems to me that the only thing for us to do is to make up our minds that we are going to tackle this problem seriously, and where we find the other governments, whether of Alberta or of Nova Scotia, ready to co-operate, we should show our willingness to co-operate with them. For these reasons, Mr. Speaker,

I am pleased to support as strongly as I can the wish of the member for South Perth.


Arthur Meighen: Mr. Speaker, I exceedingly regret that I have not been able to hear much of this debate and to get the advantage of the discussion. The subject is one, of course, with which I came closely in contact during the three and one-half years that I was in charge of the Department of the Interior.
The motion of the hon. member (Mr. Steele) calls for the appointment of a committee in the hope that such a committee can contribute something supplementary to the efforts that have been made during the past number of years to bring about conditions under which a larger share of fuel consumed in Canada shall be of Canadian production. The fuel problem of Canada is one of our greatest problems. The very outstanding fact that of the money paid for goods imported into Canada, $80,000,000 is paid for coal alone, and that this coal comes entirely from the United States-a nation which, above all others, enjoys so tremendous a balance of trade as against us-that outstanding fact discloses the question as perhaps one of the most perplexing with which we have to deal.
Western Canada is replete with fuel potentialities, particularly with coal. Alberta has the largest deposits of coal, of course, on this continent-that is to say, of coal of all qualities. Canada itself, though it labours under the disability I have described, is second among the coal-containing countries of the civilized world. Western Canada, then, has its own fuel. The Maritime Provinces also are underlain with fuel. The central provinces, so far as has yet been discovered, are without great coal resources. The fortunate thing is that where coal is wanting, waterpower abounds; in those portions of the Dominion where we lack the asset of the fuel resource in the form of wood or coal, we have it in the form of water-power. But the application of water-power for fuel purposes is a matter of slow development and cannot extend to such a length as will render it in any degree a solution of the fuel problem in the central provinces, for the reason that with the advancement of time and the development of industry the power that may be gathered from the fall of water will be more and more consumed in industries and manufactures. Now, though the

output of Alberta is today the largest of any of the provinces, and though that output has increased very appreciably, particularly in recent years, we do not yet supply Western Canada with fuel, and we cannot hope for some time, I fear, to carry the -fuel of the West, that is, of Alberta, further-at least to any extent worth bothering about-than the head of the lakes. It is a matter solely of the cost of freight; it is a matter of the relation of the cost of the imported coal to the cost of carrying the freight in Canada. We do to-day bring the coal of the East into the province of Quebec-it is even coming into Ontario- and the effort is to bring the Nova Scotia coal as far as possible westward, to occupy as large an area of the Quebec field particularly as can be occupied by that production. That as well is a question of freight, a question of the relation of the cost of carriage of the coal to the cost of the imported competing article. That is the whole problem. You cannot carry coal for nothing. You may make the rate nothing, if you will, but that does not mean you carry it for nothing; it means only that you carry it at the cost of the country, and if you carry it at the cost of the carriage of the commodities of course it comes out of the people. There is a certain inherent cost in the carriage of coal and no amount of bookkeeping is going to reduce it. Consequently the extent to which that relationship is a factor in the area that can be covered by the Canadian production of coal is not alterable by very much that this Parliament can do. We have endeavoured in recent years-and I think there has been very considerable application of the resources of government to the problem; more than is generally understood-to make the production of the lignite of Saskatchewan such that it could withstand exposure to the air and thus be made available for other portions of the West in particular. In that respect we have had a very considerable degree of success. I am glad to note the reference made by the hon. member for Regina (Mr. Cowan) to the success that has been achieved there. My information is-and it is very recent indeed from the Lignite Commission-that they are now at the stage where they feel that the element of chance is pretty nearly negligible and that they can be said to have succeeded in actually commercializing the briquetting of coal. They have succeeded in obtaining, and are satisfied with the results obtained from it, the best binder that can be got. They believe it is the
right one, and the only element of chance, if there be any, is in determining whether or not the use of this binder and the methods of its use require such capital and such labour that the cost is really going to be low enough to warrant-to compel, indeed -the distribution of briquettes at least as far as the head of the lakes and generally over the eastern prairie provinces. I do not think they entertain very much doubt, if any at all, that that is going to be the case. They feel that they have made a success of the enterprise that has been entrusted to them, and I think their view in that regard has plenty of material to back it up; I do not think they are wrong.
In Eastern Canada, in Ontario here, the effort has been directed in two ways, one toward the making available of our peat resources, and the other to show that we have coal at least in the farther northern portion of the province. As regards the problem of peat, there, too, considerable success has been attained. A machine has been developed which produces on a large scale, and which they are ready to turn over to a company,-if indeed, they have not already done so-with a view to the production of peat on a purely commercial basis apart from government assistance. It was a matter merely of the development of machinery that could be put down at a cost, and do the work at a cost, that would enable the peat production to compete. That, I think, they have succeeded in doing. When I last inquired, they were working at another machine or a smaller size which they thought might be used successfully and would aid in the production of this article.
The information I have obtained lately is to the effect that in northern Ontario in the rivers leading to Hudson bay, and in one in particular, there are indications that coal exists in such quantities and of such quality that it is likely it will be of use, in the not distant future, for consumption in this p rovince. I cannot give the House very much information, not because there is anything to conceal, but because I have not as yet learned just what is the result of their investigations. I remember well, only a few months ago, arranging for a- special investigation of that question, and from a memorandum which I received just the other day and which I cannot put my hands on at the moment, I gathered the impression that those who started on the investigation had rather more success than they expected. So much for that.

As regards what a committee might do, and as regards the wisdom of this House accepting the resolution of the hon. member for South Perth (Mr. Steele), there is this to be said. A committee could gather together in convenient form the information that now may be found in more or less scattered and inconvenient form. It could be of use in bringing to the attention, particularly of members of the committee and through them of the House, the real factors of the problem and especially of impressing how earnest and, I think, how systematic have been the efforts to solve that problem. If it succeeds in doing that the committee will be well worth while. The scientific board which has been at work for some two or three years has directed its efforts to this question. The committee will be able to gather much information from that board, and the policy which was foreshadowed in the speech from the Throne, and which it is intended to initiate this session will, I hope, enable that board more effectually to do its work and exert its energies in this as well as in other directions.
The hon. member for South Perth has undoubtedly contributed, not only to the interest of the afternoon, but to the usefulness of the day in launching this discussion, and I see no reason why the request he makes in his resolution should not be granted. Indeed, I see considerable reason why it should. I would like a committee of this House to give the assistance to the discussion of this subject in Parliament that they could give by a close and concentrated study of this question, and if they so give their time and energy to it, they will be able to assist very much in the discussions in this House, and the solution of the problem will be advanced. I think that is all that the resolution calls for, and that is the attitude that I have towards it. I understand other hon. members desire to speak and, consequently, it will not be possible to close the debate at this time.
Mr. J. C. DOUGLAS (Cape Breton South and Richmond) moved the adjournment of the debate.
Motion agreed to and debate adjourned.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.

William Stevens Fielding: Before the House adjourns, I should like, if I am permitted, to put a question or offer a suggestion to the Minister of Finance (Sir Henry Drayton) touching, the Budget. I do not wish to press

him unduly, because I know the embarrassments and difficulties of that; but there are some matters bearing more or less upon something approaching the Budget, which some of us may desire to discuss, and if the Budget were to be delayed, we might find it necessary to deal with them separately. I would not ask my hon. friend for an answer now, but my suggestion is this: that if, when the House meets again after the Easter recess, he is able to give an approximate idea of when the Budget will come down, that will be helpful to the general business of the House. What business will be taken up on Tuesday?


Arthur Meighen: The Government will proceed with Estimates. The Department of Labour and the Department of the Interior are prepared to go on.' Should we get further than Estimates, I would intimate the likelihood of proceeding with the oleomargarine resolution and with the Lake of the Woods Control Bill.
At Six o'clock the House adjourned pursuant to rule.
Tuesday, March 29, 1921